Environmental Assessment

for thet

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project

Prepared for

Prepared by

BRG Consulting, Inc.
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

for the

Carlsbad Village

Double Track Project

prepared for

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

1200 New Jersey Avenue,

and

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)

401 B Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

prepared by

BRG Consulting, Inc.

304 Ivy Street

San Diego, CA 92101

April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project i April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................... A-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT....................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Background...................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Study Area................................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Project Purpose and Need.........................................................................................................1-3

1.5 Applicable Regulations and Permits...........................................................................................1-4

2.0 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives.............................................................................................2-1

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed..............................................................................................................2-8

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ........................................................3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources ............................................................................................3.1-1

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................3.2-1

3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands........................................................................................3.3-1

3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice/Section VI......................................................3.4-1

3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources...........................................................................................3.5-1

3.6 Geology/Soils ..................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ..................................................................................3.7-1

3.8 Hydrology/Floodplains............................................................................................................3.8-1

3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions ..........................................................................3.9-1

3.10 Noise and Vibration..............................................................................................................3.10-1

3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas ..............................................................................................3.11-1

3.12 Public Health and Safety .....................................................................................................3.12-1

3.13 Relocation Impacts ..............................................................................................................3.13-1

3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources ....................................................................................3.14-1

3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation ............................................................................................3.15-1

3.16 Construction Impacts ...........................................................................................................3.16-1

3.17 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 3.17-1

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION...............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Agency Coordination.................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Public Outreach .....................................................................................................................4-2

4.2 Public Outreach .....................................................................................................................4-2

5.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST..............................................................................................................................5-1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................................................6-1

7.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................7-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project ii April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

1-1 Regional Location..........................................................................................................................1-5

1-2 Project Location.............................................................................................................................1-6

2-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) ........................................................................................................2-3

2-2 Tamarack Signal Work Area...........................................................................................................2-6

3.1-1 Viewpoint Locations .................................................................................................................... 3.1-3

3.1-2 Viewpoint 1 with Photosimulation................................................................................................. 3.1-4

3.1-3 Viewpoint 2 with Photosimulation................................................................................................. 3.1-5

3.1-4 Viewpoint 3 with Photosimulation................................................................................................. 3.1-6

3.1-5 Viewpoint 4 with Photosimulation................................................................................................. 3.1-7

3.3-1 Wet Season Protocol Sample Areas............................................................................................ 3.3-7

3.3-2 Biological Impacts..................................................................................................................... 3.3-11

3.5-1 Direct and Indirect Effects APE.................................................................................................... 3.5-2

3.9-1 Existing Land Use....................................................................................................................... 3.9-9

3.10-1 Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels for Land Use Categories 1 and 2 ....................... 3.10-2

3.10-2 Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R1 to R7 .................................................................................... 3.10-8

3.10-3 Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R8 to R10................................................................................... 3.10-9

3.10-4 Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R11 to R14 and I-1 ................................................................... 3.10-10

3.12-1 Emergency Service Locations ................................................................................................... 3.12-2

3.15-1 Land Evaluated for 4(f) Eligibility ............................................................................................... 3.15-3

3.15-2 Section 6(f) Resources.............................................................................................................. 3.15-7

3.17-1 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................................. 3.17-4

3.17-2 Adjacent Cumulative Projects.................................................................................................... 3.17-5

3.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary...................................................................................................... 3.2-6

3.2-3 Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions................................................................ 3.2-9

3.2-4 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................ 3.2-10

3.3-1 Vegetation Types within the Biological Study Area ....................................................................... 3.3-5

3.3-2 Impacts to the Vegetation Communities within the Biological Study Area .................................... 3.3-10

3.3-3 Impacts to the Federal Waters within the Biological Study Area.................................................. 3.3-16

3.5-1 Eligible Historic Properties within the Indirect APE ....................................................................... 3.5-3

3.6-1 Summary of Soil Borings (Lagoon Segment)................................................................................ 3.6-3

3.6-2 Summary of Soil Borings (Village Segment)................................................................................. 3.6-3

3.6-3 Soil Sample Laboratory Tests Performed..................................................................................... 3.6-4

3.6-4 Idealized Soil Profile and Strength Parameters (Lagoon Segment) ............................................... 3.6-5

3.6-5 Idealized Soil Profile and Strength Parameters (Village Segment) ................................................ 3.6-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

List of Tables

Table No. Page
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project iii April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

3.6-6 Project Area Fault Data............................................................................................................... 3.6-6

3.6-7 Geotechnical Input for AREMA (2013) ARS Curve ....................................................................... 3.6-6

3.8-1 Maximum Water Elevations Comparison Between Existing and Proposed Railroad 

Bridges....................................................................................................................................... 3.8-3

3.10-1 FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics ............................................................................ 3.10-2

3.10-2 FRA Vibration Impact Criteria.................................................................................................... 3.10-3

3.10-3 Sources of Transit Noise........................................................................................................... 3.10-4

3.10-4 Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurements................................................................................ 3.10-5

3.10-5 Summary of Train Passby Measurements.................................................................................. 3.10-5

3.10-6 Daily Service Level Assumptions for Train Operations (Oceanside to San Diego)........................ 3.10-6

3.10-7 Train Noise Impacts ................................................................................................................ 3.10-11

3.10-8 Train Vibration Impacts ........................................................................................................... 3.10-12

3.11-1 Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Refuges Within Project Vicinity .............................................. 3.11-3

3.12-1 Utility Impact Summary ............................................................................................................. 3.12-5

3.15-1 Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas, and Refuges Within Project Vicinity .................................. 3.15-5

3.15-2 Eligible Historic Properties within the Indirect APE ..................................................................... 3.15-6

3.15-3 Section 6(f) Resources.............................................................................................................. 3.15-6

3.16-1 Construction Activities............................................................................................................... 3.16-2

3.16-2 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ................................................. 3.16-3

3.16-3 Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions.............................................................. 3.16-3

3.16-4 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................ 3.16-3

3.16-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (After BMPs)............................. 3.16-5

3.16-6 Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (After BMPs) ......................................... 3.16-5

3.16-7 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions (After BMPs).................................................... 3.16-5

3.16-8 FTA Guidelines for Assessing Construction Noise Impact......................................................... 3.16-11

3.16-9 FRA Building Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .............................................................. 3.16-13

3.16-10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels...................................................................................... 3.16-14

3.16-11 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................................... 3.16-19

3.17-1 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................................. 3.17-1

A. Visual Impact Assessment 

Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

June 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

List of Tables

Table No. Page

List of Technical Appendices
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project iv April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Technical Report 

Prepared by Pan Environmental, Inc.

September 2013

C. Biological Technical Report

Prepared by Merkel & Associates, Inc.

February 2016

D. Community Impact Assessment

Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

June 2014

E Environmental Justice Technical Report

Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

June 2014

F Cultural and Historical Resources Report

Prepared by ASM Affiliates

August 2013

G1 Preliminary Foundation Report for the Carlsbad Village Station Pedestrian Underpass

Prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc.

February 2014

G2 Preliminary Foundation Report for the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge

Prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc.

February 2014

H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Prepared by St. George Chadux Corp.

August 2013

I1 Preliminary Drainage Report

Prepared by T.Y. Lin International

March 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

List of Technical Appendices
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project v April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

I2 Fluvial Hydraulic Analysis

Everest International Consultants, Inc.

February 2014

J Land Use Technical Report

Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

June 2014

K Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Prepared by ATS Consulting

June 2014

L Section 4(f) Evaluation

Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.

June 2014

M Utility Impacts Report

Prepared by T.Y. Lin International

March 2014

N Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan

Prepared by T.Y. Lin International

March 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

List of Technical Appendices
Table of Contents

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project vi April 2018

Environmental Assessment 

This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

ACRONYMS

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

AB Assembly Bill

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials

AMSL Above Mean Sea Level

APCD Air Pollution Control District County of San Diego

APE Area of Potential Effect

AR Base Acceleration Coefficient

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association

ARS Acceleration Response Spectral

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BA Biological Assessment 

BMP Best Management Practice

BO Biological Opinion 

BSA Biological Study Area

CAA Clean Air Act

CAGN California gnatcatcher

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCA California Coastal Act

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCC California Coastal Commission

CCMP California Coastal Management Program

CCR Code of California Regulations

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDP Coastal Development Permit

CEQ California Environmental Quality

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CAGN California Gnatcatcher

CH4 Methane

CIDH Cast-In-Drilled-Hole
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide equivalent

CP Control Point

CPT Cone Penetration Test

CT California Test

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program

dBA A-Weighted Decibels

DMC De Minimis Condition

DOT Department of Transportation

DPM Diesel Particulate Matter

EA Environmental Assessment

EHRA Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System

ESA Endangered Species Act (Federal)

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HA Hydrologic Area

HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

HMP Habitat Management Plan

HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

HP High Pressure

HRS Hazard Ranking System

HU Hydrologic Unit

I-5 Interstate 5

ICCTA Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act

Lbs pounds
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

LCP Local Coastal Program

Ldn Day-Night Sound Level

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

LHP Landslide Hazard Program

LID Low Impact Development

Lmax Maximum noise level

LOSSAN San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor

LQG Large Quantity Generator

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MFR Multi-Family Residence

MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Mile Post

mph miles per hour

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MT mainline track

MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

MTS Metropolitan Transit District

MWD Metropolitan Water District

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NCC North Coast Corridor

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning 

NCTD North County Transit District

NCTC North County Transit Corridor

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSF National Science Foundation

N2O Nitrous Oxide

O3 Ozone

OCRM Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

pcf Pound Per Cubic Foot

PDP Priority Development Project

PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PFC Perfluorocarbons

PIP Public Involvement Plan

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns

PM2.5 Particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns

ppm parts per million

PPP Public Participation Plan

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

psf Pound Per Square Foot

PWP/TREP Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program

RAP Relocation Assistance Program

RAQS Regional Air Quality Standards

RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe

RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

ROW Right-of-way

RPW Relatively Permanent Water

RSA Resource Study Area

RT Residential Tourist

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

S Site Coefficient

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments

SARA Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act

SB Senate Bill

SCIC South Coastal Information Center

SDAB San Diego Air Basin

SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

SFR Single-Family Residential

SHCP Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SPT Standard Penetration Test
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

SQG Small Quantity Generator

STB Surface Transportation Board

SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan

SWMP Stormwater Management Plan

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TC Transportation Corridor

TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe

VdB Vibration Decibels 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WoUS Waters of the United States

μg/m3 Microgram per cubic meter
Acronyms

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project A-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
1.0 – Purpose and Need of Project

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 1-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations, and the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

(FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA Procedures). This is a Tier 2 EA, addressing sitespecific environmental impacts associated with the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) proposed 

construction and operation of the Carlsbad Village Double Track Project. The concept of tiering allows an agency to 

make planning decisions and decision-making in NEPA from broader scope during a Tier 1 review and follow up with

project or site specific reviews and decision making during Tier 2.

This EA tiers from the 2007 Tier 1 Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and subsequent FRA 

Record of Decision. For the Tier 1, FRA served as the lead Federal Agency for NEPA while the California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Rail served as the lead State Agency for purposes of California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA). The FRA continues to be the lead agency during Tier 2 because the FRA is providing financial 

assistance for the completion of preliminary engineering and environmental review for the Carlsbad Village Double 

Track Project. At this time, FRA has no other funding or approvals related to construction or implementation of the 

Project. 

SANDAG proposes the addition of a second main track along the Oceanside to Carlsbad segment of the LOSSAN Rail 

Corridor. The Carlsbad Village Double Track Project, or Proposed Action, is located within the existing North County 

Transit District (NCTD) railroad right-of-way (ROW) along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. As of April 2013, NCTD’s Coaster 

trains and AMTRAK Pacific Surfliner trains stop at Carlsbad Village Station.

1.2 Project Background

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County serves both intra- and interstate commerce (freight), as well as national 

passenger rail (Amtrak) and regional commuter service (Coaster and Metrolink). The portion of the LOSSAN Rail 

Corridor within San Diego County is the San Diego Subdivision of the North County Transit Corridor (NCTC). On the 

San Diego Subdivision, NCTD is the owner/operator for the segment between the Orange County line and the San 

Diego city limits. Implementation of most of NCTD’s capital projects, including Carlsbad Village Double Track, 

transitioned to SANDAG pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 1703 (2002), legislation that clarified the role of SANDAG as the 

implementing agency for capital projects and that of NCTD as a transit operator.

1.2.1 Previous Environmental Documents and Studies

Several previous environmental documents and studies laid the groundwork for the current project. These documents 

and studies established the regional context for meeting regional transportation demands, programmatically identified 

likely environmental effects and mitigation strategies, established the need for double track through the project area, 

and established a range of alternatives to be reviewed in this EA.
1.0 – Purpose and Need of Project

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 1-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Los Angeles – San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study (WSA, 1987). A 1987 LOSSAN State Rail Corridor 

Study identified and prioritized improvements along the LOSSAN rail corridor that would reduce train running times, 

increase reliability of service, facilitate additional frequencies for inter-city service, and provide for the introduction of 

commuter rail service while maintaining capacity for freight operations. The projects detailed in the study were intended 

to further the state and region-wide goal of reducing dependence on single-occupant vehicles. The study identified 

improvements to the Carlsbad Village Double Track as a priority project essential to reliability of rail service. 

Realignment of the track and adding a second mainline track (MT) in Carlsbad Village was identified in this study as a 

project that would contribute to reduced travel time, and enhanced operations in terms of reliability, efficiency and 

safety.

LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS (FRA, Record of Decision March 19, 2009). FRA served as the lead Federal Agency for NEPA 

while the Caltrans, Division of Rail served as the lead State Agency for purposes of CEQA. The Carlsbad Village Double 

Track project was part of the rail improvements evaluated in this document. The PEIR/PEIS was a Tier 1 environmental 

review document that evaluated conceptual corridors, alignments, and station options. The PEIR/PEIS described how 

the improvements would serve the purpose of augmenting the existing rail infrastructure; help relieve congestion and 

capacity constraints, while offering reliable, safe and time-efficient travel. The PEIR/PEIS identified the subsequent to 

the joint PEIR/PEIS tiered environmental reviews would be prepared for a project-level environmental review prior to 

permitting and construction. The Tier 2 environmental document would provide further consideration of site specific 

alignments including depth analysis, engineering refinement, and detailed studies, as well as further public and agency 

input to avoid or minimize impacts and to make decisions among alignment options. 

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Project (Kornblatt, 1989). This 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed the purchase of ROW, the beginning of Coaster service, and the 

construction of additional improvements, including stations and track improvements. The EIR included an analysis of 

some double-tracking to be carried out within the existing ROW, including through Carlsbad Village that would not affect 

sensitive resources. 

San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (The Regional Plan) (SANDAG, 2015a). The Regional Plan is a 

comprehensive roadmap to guide San Diego from 2015 through 2050. It integrates the regional transportation planning, 

sustainable communities strategy, and the regional comprehensive planning into one document to chart the region’s 

future growth and transportation investments. The vision of The Regional Plan is to provide innovative mobility choices 

and planning to support a sustainable and healthy region, a vibrant economy, and an outstanding quality of life for all. 

The Regional Plan seeks to guide the San Diego region toward a more sustainable future by integrating how to use 

land and plan transportation. It serves as a long-range plan designed to coordinate and manage future regional 

transportation improvements, services, and programs among the various agencies operating within the San Diego 

region. The Regional Plan outlines projects for rail and bus services, highways, local streets, bicycling, and walking, as 

well as systems and demand management. Proposed major improvements to meet these objectives include doubletracking the remaining single-tracked portions of the entire railroad line from Oceanside to San Diego, which includes 

the railroad through Carlsbad Village. The Regional Plan Final EIR (SANDAG, 2015b) identified potentially significant 

and unavoidable impacts, potentially significant and mitigable impacts as well as impacts identified as less than 

significant. Feasible mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR. 
1.0 – Purpose and Need of Project

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 1-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan (LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, 2012). The LOSSAN Agency 

initiated the LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan as a first step in implementing a new corridorwide 

vision for passenger rail services. This vision was adopted by the LOSSAN Board of Directors in 2009 and calls for a 

fresh look at the future of the entire rail corridor with an emphasis on intercity rail service. The goals of the LOSSAN 

Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan study are: collectively provide the infrastructure to allow more peak period 

trains, faster through-express trains and additional service improvements that meet current and future conventional 

and high-speed intercity, commuter, and freight demands both north and south of Los Angeles Union Station; integrate 

regional fare policy and develop common fare media that are based in part on early implementation lessons in the 

corridor as appropriate (electronic revenue collection); integrate and/or coordinate operations and develop more 

efficient operating schedules and dispatching for corridor services; implement a strategy for seamless rail travel in the 

corridor; collaborate to identify and establish new services for unserved and underserved markets; integrate and 

improve traveler information, standardized to the extent possible; and, coordinate with long-distance passenger rail and 

connecting motorcoach services.

California State Rail Plan (Caltrans, 2013). In compliance with 49 United States Code (USC) Section 22102

concerning state rail plans and state rail administration, the California State Rail Plan establishes a statewide vision 

and objectives, sets priorities, and develops implementation strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail service in 

the public interest. The California State Rail Plan provides a comprehensive listing of long-range investment needs for 

California’s passenger and freight infrastructure, it supports the State’s goal of developing an integrated, multimodal 

transportation network it guides federal and state rail investments that will improve the movement of people and goods 

while enhancing economic growth and quality of life. The Proposed Action is identified as a capital project in the 

California State Rail Plan. 

1.3 Study Area

The Proposed Action is located in the northwestern portion of San Diego County, California, within the Cities of 

Oceanside and Carlsbad along the Pacific Coastline, west of Interstate 5 (I-5), as shown in Figure 1-1. As shown in 

Figure 1-2, the Proposed Action involves double-tracking an existing railroad ROW between Mile Post (MP) 228.0 in 

Oceanside to MP 229.6. The Proposed Action would be implemented solely within the existing railroad ROW between 

Cassidy Street in Oceanside and Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, in addition to a new wayside signal located at MP 230.1 

within the ROW 150 feet north of Tamarack Avenue, extending through downtown Carlsbad and Buena Vista Lagoon.

The developed land surrounding the lagoon is comprised of single-family and multi-family residential, as well as 

commercial land uses to the east and west of the lagoon. The immediate area surrounding the lagoon is made up of 

densely vegetated open space. Additionally, the railroad ROW is slightly visible but very distant and views are mostly 

obstructed from Magee Park and the small park (Maxton Brown Park) located at the corner of State Street and Laguna 

Drive. The project site is located within the California Coastal Zone Boundary.

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

As discussed above in Section 1.2, a 1987 LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study identified the realignment and doubletracking improvements to the Carlsbad Village Double Track as a priority project essential to reliability of rail service. 

Currently there are delays in scheduled operations, a lack of flexibility for freight operations and current capacity is not 

expected to meet future demands. Double-tracking the Oceanside to Carlsbad segment is needed to eliminate a single-
1.0 – Purpose and Need of Project

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 1-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

track bottleneck in the vicinity of Carlsbad Village Station. Constructing the 1.1-mile long second main track would

connect the two adjacent double-track segments at each end of the project limits. This would achieve the project 

purpose of: improving operations for both passengers and freight in terms of reliability, efficiency and safety; improving

commuter rail and intercity train service travel times; increasing flexibility for freight operations; and, providing capacity 

to meet future increased demand for all rail services in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. 

1.5 Applicable Federal Regulations and Permits

Federal permits that may be required to implement the Proposed Action that have been identified at this time include, 

but may not be limited to, a General Construction Permit for stormwater discharges (this is a Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit obtained through filing a Notice of Intent 

and compiling a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)). Other possible permit requirements include right-ofentry, encroachment and removal agreement, easement vacation, and/or construction permit from the City of Carlsbad 

and City of Oceanside. Further, permits for discharges of fill would need to be obtained from the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) (CWA Section 404 Permit), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 

(CWA Section 401 Certification). State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) would be required. It may also be necessary to obtain incidental take permits for federally 

listed species from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)). A federal Coastal Consistency Certification would also need to be made by the California Coastal Commission 

(CCC) (Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)). At this time, the Proposed Action is only funded through NEPA and 

engineering phases and not for construction. 
FIGURE

Regional Location 1-1

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: SanGIS, 2016; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

!\

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦805

§ ̈¦5

¬«78

¬«56

¬«163

¬«52

§ ̈¦805

§ ̈¦8

¬«54

¬«125

¬«94

SAN DIEGO

POWAY

CHULA VISTA

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

VISTA

ESCONDIDO

SANTEE

ENCINITAS

SAN

MARCOS

EL CAJON

CORONADO

LA MESA

IMPERIAL

BEACH

LEMON

GROVE

SOLANA

BEACH

DEL MAR

SAN YSIDRO

CAMP PENDLETON

Pacific Ocean

MEXICO

0 2 4 6 8 10

Miles

±

Project Location

1-4
I-5 SB

I-5 NB

CARLSBAD BL

PIO PICO DR

I-5 RA

JEFFERSON ST

MADISON ST

STATE ST

HARDING ST

GRAND AV

OCEAN ST

ROOSEVELT ST

ALLEY

VISTA WY

CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

PACIFIC TR

BROADWAY

S COAST HY

S MYERS ST

S PACIFIC ST

CHESTNUT AV

OAK AV

LAS FLORES DR

S TREMONT ST

KELLY ST

PINE AV

TYLER ST

EATON ST

BUENA VISTA WY

TAMARACK AV

FOREST AV

S DITMAR ST

HIGHLAND DR

WASHINGTON ST

YOURELL AV

ACACIA AV

EUREKA PL

BEECH AV

MAGNOLIA AV

CASSIDY ST

HOME AV

ELMWOOD ST

S NEVADA ST

HEMLOCK AV

I-5 SB OFF RA

KNOWLES AV

S HORNE ST

REDWOOD AV

GARFIELD ST

WILSON AV

ANCHOR WY

LINMAR LN

DATE AV

CYNTHIA LN

DAVIS AV

LAGUNA DR

TUTTLE ST

VILLAGE DR

ARLAND RD

PACIFIC AV

LINCOLN ST

HIBISCUS CR

WALNUT AV

PRIVATE DY

BUENA PL

CYPRESS AV

CHINQUAPIN AV

CANARIO ST

STRATFORD LN

MAPLE AV

PALM AV

SEQUOIA AV

NAUTICAL DR

JUNIPER AV

CHERRY AV

PRIVATE RD

LONG PL

LORNA LN

JAMES DR

AVOCADO LN

SYCAMORE AV

ARBUCKLE PL

KREMEYER CR

CABRILLO PL

LAGUNA DR

ALLEY

ALLEY

CHESTNUT AV

OAK AV

OAK AV

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

JEFFERSON ST

LINCOLN ST

I-5 RA

KNOWLES AV

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

ALLEY

PINE AV

PINE AV

PRIVATE RD

GARFIELD ST

ALLEY

I-5 RA

DAVIS AV

EATON ST

FOREST AV

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

SOURCE: Esri, 2016; T.Y. Lin, 2013 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Project Location 1-2

FIGURE

± 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000

Feet

Tamarack Ave.

Signal Work Area

Project Location

CITY OF OCEANSIDE

CITY OF CARLSBAD

§ ̈¦5

Buena Vista

Lagoon

MP 228.0

MP 229.6

Carlsbad Village Station

Rotary Park

1-5
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

This section describes the alternatives analyzed within this EA. These alternatives were initially considered by 

SANDAG. In the 2011 Project Study Report (RailPros, 2011), RailPros recommended that the second track alignment 

be constructed to the east of the existing track maintaining 18 feet track centers through the station area, Grand Avenue, 

and Carlsbad Village Drive. SANDAG conducted an independent evaluation of potential alternative double track 

alignments in the Carlsbad Village Double Track area, Alternatives Analysis Report for the Carlsbad Village DoubleTrack, (T.Y.Lin, 2014a). The purpose of the alternatives analysis was to provide recommended alternatives to carry 

forward into preliminary engineering and environmental clearance that could potentially achieve the purposes of the 

rail improvements and avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts. Six alternatives and engineering designs were 

analyzed and evaluated. Alternatives were eliminated for reasons that are discussed in detail below (Section 2.3) and 

therefore, are not further evaluated in this EA.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to add a second track to increase rail capacity and improve operations and 

reliability as established in Section 1.4. Six alternative project alignments and engineering designs were analyzed and 

evaluated in the Carlsbad Village Double Track Alternative Analysis Report (T.Y. Lin, 2014a). One alternative 

(Alternative B) was identified as the Proposed Action and is further evaluated in this EA. The No Action Alternative is 

also considered in this EA and is described in more detail below. 

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives

The alternative analysis was based upon criteria determined by SANDAG’s Project Development Team. The Project 

Development Team included representatives from NCTD, SANDAG, RailPros, BRG Consulting, and T.Y. Lin 

International. Resource materials relied upon by the Project Development Team included: Project Study Report, 

preliminary environmental surveys, topographic surveys, record drawings, site investigations, existing bus routes, and 

known stakeholder concerns. The project team ranked each criterion and scored each alternative to determine a 

preferred alignment, which would have the least amount of impacts and greatest benefits generated with respect to 

selection criteria. The Project Development Team recommended one alternative, the Proposed Action, for analysis in 

the EA. The other design alternatives met the project’s purpose and need (except the No Action alternative) but were 

dismissed for further consideration for other reasons as described in Section 2.4 Alternatives Dismissed.

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives

2.3.1 Proposed Action

2.3.1.1 Track Alignment

The Proposed Action would install a second main track within the existing railroad ROW between MP 228.0 and MP 

229.6, as shown in Figure 1-2. The Proposed Action would relocate the existing MT alignment (MT2) 3 feet to the west 

of its existing location and add 1.1 miles of new second track (MT1) varying from 15 to 20 feet east of the existing track 

alignment. The Proposed Action includes the replacement of an existing single track bridge across Buena Vista Lagoon 
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

with a double track bridge at a somewhat higher elevation to accommodate floods and anticipated sea level rise. Based 

on thirty percent design, it is anticipated that the new top of rail would be 5 feet higher than the current top of rail across 

the bridge. The new track would pass under the existing Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge through the existing east bay as 

shown in Figure 2-1.

The Proposed Action logically falls into two segments. The segment from the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge to the northern 

end of the Study Area (MP 228.0) is hereinto referred to as the “Lagoon Segment”. The segment south of the Carlsbad 

Boulevard Bridge is hereinto referred to as the “Developed Segment”.

2.3.1.2 Lagoon Segment Improvements

Construction of a new pre-cast concrete double track bridge north of the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge would include 

additional fill material to be placed on both sides of the existing embankment to widen the embankment width from 

approximately 65 feet to approximately 106 feet at the base of the berm. The wider embankment allows for the 

construction of the second track approximately 20 feet east of the existing tracks (centerline to centerline). The new 

bridge would be approximately the same length as the existing bridge. Construction of the bridge would be conducted 

in phases, beginning with the easterly MT1 track. The first phase of construction would include temporary shoring 

between the embankment and existing tracks to accommodate the up to five-foot rise in embankment elevation, 

placement and compaction of fill to widen and raise the berm, construction of half of the new bridge, laying of new track, 

and cutting over to allow the trains to run on the new track and bridge. Once the MT1 track is completed and operational, 

improvements to the MT2 track would be completed. This would include demolition of the existing bridge and track, 

placement and compaction of fill to widen and raise the berm, construction of the second half of the new bridge, laying 

of new track, and completing the track connections.

2.3.1.3 Developed Segment Improvements 

South of Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge the new track improvements would gradually return to the existing elevation. The 

existing track (MT2) would be shifted 3 feet to the west and the new MT1 would be built 15 feet east of the existing 

track. The developed segment improvements include the following areas:

• Carlsbad Village Coaster Station Improvements

• Rotary Park Encroachment

• At-Grade-Crossings at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive

• Tamarack Wayside Signal

Carlsbad Village Coaster Station Improvements 

To accommodate a second track adjacent to Carlsbad Village Station, the existing track (MT2) would be shifted three 

feet to the west and provide an 18-foot offset to the new MT1 on the east (centerline to centerline). The existing width 

of the platform would be reduced by approximately 15 feet. This platform reduction would not adversely affect the 

Carlsbad Village Coaster Station building because the station was built anticipating that a 15-foot platform reduction 

would occur when a second track was installed. A new westerly platform would be installed, and a new inter-track fence 

would be installed between the two tracks. The existing at-grade pedestrian crossing would be eliminated and a new 

pedestrian undercrossing would be located within the railroad ROW north of the station building (in the vicinity of Beech 
FIGURE

Project Impact Area 2-1

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: Esri, 2016; SanGIS, 2016; T.Y. Lin, 2013 9/12/16

STATE ST

ALLEY

CARLSBAD BL

GRAND AV

WASHINGTON ST

TYLER ST

OAK AV

BEECH AV

PINE AV

CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

PRIVATE RD

PACIFIC AV

OCEAN ST

MTN VIEW DR

CHRISTIANSEN WY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DR

NORMANDY LN

CYPRESS AV

CHRISTIANSEN WY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PINE AV

PRIVATE DY

WASHINGTON ST

PRIVATE DY

OAK AV

PRIVATE DY

±

0 100 200 300 400Feet

ALLEY

BROADWAY

PACIFIC TR

S MYERS ST

S PACIFIC ST

S TREMONT ST

CARLSBAD BL

CASSIDY ST

KELLY ST

VISTA WY

EATON ST

PRIVATE RD

STATE ST

ST MALO BEACH

PRIVATE DR

ALLEY VISTA WY

KELLY ST

ALLEY

EATON ST

ST MALO BEACH

Mile Post 229.0

Permanent Impact Area

Temporary Impact Area (includes Access Road)

M A T C H L I N E

M A T C H L I N E

Buena Vista

Lagoon

Temporary Access Road

Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge

Mile Post 229.6

Mile Post 228.0

Carlsbad Village Station

Rotary Park

2-3
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Avenue (MP 229.0)). The pedestrian undercrossing would allow for the eastern railway platform to connect with the 

western railway platform and provide public access east and west of the tracks, while allowing for trains to safely pass 

through the station while another train is loading/unloading at the station. The station parking lot would lose 

approximately 12 parking spaces. The existing six transit station bus bays would be reduced to three bus bays and two 

parallel parking stops, thus eliminating one bus bay.

Rotary Park Encroachments 

Rotary Park was previously a City of Carlsbad public park located southwest of the existing railroad alignment between 

Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. The former park is approximately one acre and lies entirely within the 

existing railroad ROW on land owned by NCTD. This former park is not included in the City of Carlsbad’s recreational 

element of the General Plan. The property is no longer designated for recreational use. The Proposed Action would 

encroach three feet into the prior lease area and would require trimming of the existing trees and relocation of the 

existing fence. The Proposed Action would not affect the existing grass area within the prior lease area. 

At-Grade-Crossings Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive 

At-grade-crossing improvements would be required at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. The crossing gates, 

signals, and associated facilities for both directions of traffic at each crossing would need to be upgraded with the new 

facilities.

Tamarack Avenue Wayside Signal

Wayside signals would be installed at MP 230.09 to maintain block spacing and efficient train movement. The 

bidirectional signals would provide sufficient braking for eastbound and westbound trains while maximizing signal 

preview. Wayside signals would be installed approximately 150 feet north of Tamarack Avenue MP 230.1. Wayside 

signals would be placed 15 feet from centerline of existing main tracks. A new 8 X 10-foot signal shelter would be 

placed adjacent to existing crossing shelter. Figures 1-2 and 2-2 depict the location of the proposed Tamarack wayside 

signal. 

2.3.1.4 Temporary Access Roads 

Temporary access roads are necessary to provide ingress and egress to the site for construction purposes as shown 

on Figure 2-1. Beginning at the northern portion of the project, contractors would utilize the existing access road off 

Cassidy Street in Oceanside. Temporary access to the south side of the lagoon bridge would be through the NCTD 

yard located north of the station and along the proposed MT1 track. To access the southern end of the ROW in the 

Developed Segment of the site, contractors would utilize the access road off of Oak Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. 

2.3.1.5 Maintenance Road

A permanent 11-foot wide maintenance road would be located east of the tracks from Control Point (CP) Longboard 

(MP 228.4) through the Lagoon Segment of the Proposed Action. The maintenance road would terminate at the lagoon 

bridge. 

2.3.1.6 Drainage Best Management Practices

A bio-swale would be constructed along the north end of the east platform and the track and along the curb and sidewalk 

on the northeast side of the parking lot. The swales would provide treatment of runoff from the existing parking lot and 

platform area. The drainage ditches along the tracks would be re-graded to provide proper flow capacity and comply 

with NCTD standards, and riprap energy dissipaters would be constructed at the discharge points into the lagoon to 

mitigate 100-year storm velocities and prevent excessive erosion.
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

SOURCE: Esri, 2012; T.Y. Lin, 2013 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Tamarack Signal Work Area 2-2

FIGURE

± 0 40 80 120 160

Feet

TAMARACK AVE

2-6
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

2.3.1.7 Grading and Construction

Construction activities for the Proposed Action would last approximately 18 to 30 months (construction duration would 

vary depending upon weather and seasonal factors, and construction plan specifics developed during final design).

Construction would involve the following general activities:

Phase 1

• Construct new pedestrian underpass at Carlsbad Village Station

• Construct West Platform at Carlsbad Village Station 

• Construct new railroad embankment and easterly half of new Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge

• Construct new MT1 Track STA 2046 to 2095

Phase 2

• Lineover MT1 track into existing track between Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass and new bridge

• Move tracks 3 feet west at the station after the west platform is functional

• Remove existing Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge

• Construct 2nd half of new Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge

Phase 3

• Demolish existing platform at Carlsbad Village Station

• Finish construction at new east platform at Carlsbad Village Station

• Construct new MT1 track from STA 2095 to 2117

Phase 4

• Remove CP Carl (MP 229.5) and replace with track elements

• Connect new MT1 to existing MT1 at CP Carl

• Realign main tracks between Carlsbad Boulevard Overpass and new bridges to permanent alignment

• Remove CP Longboard and replace with track elements

• Restore and revegetate areas disturbed by construction

• Install Wayside Signals north of Tamarack Avenue

The proposed construction schedule would be Monday through Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Weekend work and 

night work would also be required when work must be done near or on the existing track, and train traffic must be 

stopped for work to proceed. Limited nighttime construction would be necessary within the existing ROW where the 

existing track would be realigned and where new track would connect to the existing track. Construction access routes 

and staging areas would be provided along the length of the project. 
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

2.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under No Action Alternative, the existing single railroad track alignment would not change, and a second track would 

not be developed. Under this alternative, rail operations and reliability would not be improved, and passenger and 

freight rail capacity would not be increased. 

The No Action Alternative would avoid the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed 

Action. However, unlike the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and need.

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed

As discussed above, an Alternative Analysis Report was prepared by SANDAG to identify project alternatives to carry 

forward for environmental review. The Proposed Action in the EA was identified as Alternative B in the Alternative 

Analysis Report. This section briefly describes the five alternatives (Alternative A, C, D, E, and F) considered in the 

Alternative Analysis Report but not carried forward for analysis in the EA. This section also describes the Trenching 

Alternative considered in the 2007 Tier 1 LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS. 

2.4.1 Alternative A

Alternative A proposed to maintain the existing track as MT2 (west) and to construct a new MT1 (east) track with an 

offset to the east side of the existing tracks. Alternative A was eliminated from further review because a section of the 

existing Carlsbad Village Station building would need to be removed to provide adequate clearances. Approximately 

17 parking stalls would be lost to improvements at the existing station under this alternative.

2.4.2 Alternative C

Alternative C proposed to offset the tracks at the station, similar to Alternative B. Along the Lagoon Segment, the 

existing tracks would be maintained as MT1 (east) and MT2 would be built 20 feet to the west of MT1. In offsetting the 

MT2 track to the west, the new alignment for MT2 would require the tracks to travel through the Carlsbad Boulevard 

Bridge under the west bay. The west bay was not previously configured to accommodate tracks. To be able to utilize 

the west bay would require grading of the existing slope, construction of retaining walls and improvement to the bridge 

pier. This alternative also required a 20-foot linear encroachment in Rotary Park, resulting in additional impacts to the 

existing bus station and affected an existing tennis court north and west of the lagoon. Alternative C was eliminated 

from further review because of the need for retaining walls and bridge piers, because of impacts to adjacent bus station, 

Rotary Park, and tennis court. 

2.4.3 Alternative D

Alternative D proposed to push the tracks along the Lagoon Segment 30 feet east of the existing track along the Lagoon 

Segment and construct the new MT1 track along the Station east of the existing tracks. The alignment would utilize the 

east bay of Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge to run the new track alignment under the existing bridge. Alternative D was 

eliminated from further review because a section of the existing Carlsbad Village Station building would need to be 

removed to provide adequate clearances.
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

2.4.4 Alternative E

Alternative E proposed to offset MT2 to the west of the existing tracks for both Segments, aligning the second track 

with the existing double-track at CP Longboard. The new track alignment would require the tracks to travel through the 

westerly bay of the Carlsbad Village Bridge, requiring grading and retaining wall improvements to make the bay 

accessible to the new track alignment. The 18-foot offset of the track along the Station would place the portions of the 

proposed platform/underpass improvements outside of the NCTD ROW, thus requiring additional ROW. Alternative E 

was eliminated from further review because of property acquisition takes and concerns for community/stakeholder 

acceptance.

2.4.5 Alternative F

Alternative F proposed to utilize the existing station’s configuration for future double-tracking within the Developed 

Segment and proposed to shift both tracks to the east within the Lagoon Segment. The alignment would have utilized 

the east bay for access through the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge. The rail geometry requires two reverse curves and one 

broken-back curve on MT1 and two reverse curves and two broken-back curves on MT2. Therefore, the tracks would 

have too many curves back and forth, which would provide for a less comfortable ride for passengers and would create 

additional maintenance issues for the railroad. In addition, a section of the existing Carlsbad Village Station building 

would need to be removed to provide adequate clearances; therefore, Alternative F was eliminated from further review.

2.4.6 Trenching Alternative

Caltrans and the FRA considered trenching in the City of Carlsbad as part of the Tier 1 LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS (Record 

of Decision, March 2009). In a letter addressed to the California Coastal Commission on July 17, 2014, the City of 

Carlsbad provided comments on the draft North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan and Transportation and Resource 

Enhancement Program (PWP/TREP). The comment letter included a request that SANDAG evaluate both an at-grade 

railroad option and a trench alternative. The City of Carlsbad, in cooperation with SANDAG, initiated preparation of a 

Feasibility Study for the grade separation of the railroad tracks and construction of the second track (Carlsbad Village 

Double Track – Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study, January 2017).

The Feasibility Study considered two trench alternatives that consisted of a Short Trench and Long Trench. The Short 

Trench Alternative, would construct the double track railroad lowered in a trench passing under new vehicular 

overpasses at Grand avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Oak Avenue, with new pedestrian overpasses at Beech 

Ave/Carlsbad Village Stations and Chestnut Avenue. The Long Trench Alternative, would construct a railroad trench 

passing under new vehicular overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, 

and Tamarack Avenue, with a new pedestrian overpass at Beech Ave/Carlsbad Village Station. Both trench options 

would require replacement of Carlsbad Boulevard Overcrossing with a new bridge spanning the tracks.

The Proposed Action of at-grade double tracking would not preclude trenching in the future. SANDAG considers 

projects on a regional basis and prioritizes them in the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Trenching through 

downtown Carlsbad is not consistent with The Regional Plan, as it was not identified as a high-priority project because 

of the associated high cost. The Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study identified that 

the Short Trench would have an estimated cost of between $215 million and $235 million, while the Long Trench would 

have an estimated cost of between $320 million and $350 million. For Comparison, the Proposed Action is estimated 
2.0 Alternatives

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 2-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

to cost approximately $53.6 million. SANDAG would continue to study the possibility of trenching in the future; however, 

the trenching alternative was eliminated from further review in this EA.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information provided in the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad 

Village Double-Track Project Visual Impact Assessment, prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. (BRG, 2014a). The full 

Visual Impact Assessment contains a more detailed analysis of visual impacts and is provided as Appendix A of this 

EA.

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

The process used in the visual impact study generally follows the guidelines outlined in the publication “Visual Impact 

Assessment for Highway Projects (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), March 1981). The process determines 

the visual impacts of project alternatives by assessing the changes in visual resources resulting from each alternative, 

and then predicting viewer responses to those changes. Visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual 

character and change in visual quality. The viewer response to project changes is the sum of viewer exposure and 

viewer sensitivity to the project. The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the severity of visual 

resource change with the degree of viewer response. The visual impact conclusions are provided in qualitative format; 

however, the qualitative conclusions [i.e. low (1), moderate (2), moderate-high (3), and high (4)] are associated with 

quantitative analysis, as further discussed in Appendix A of this EA.

3.1.2 Affected Environment

3.1.2.1 Visual Setting 

The Proposed Action location occupies portions of the existing railroad ROW within the cities of Carlsbad and 

Oceanside, including a bridge over the Buena Vista Lagoon between them. The area is a relatively flat coastal plain, 

with gentle slopes downhill toward the Lagoon. The Carlsbad portion of the project location to the south is surrounded 

by a mix of office, commercial, and multi-family residential development, in addition to the existing Carlsbad Village 

Station, whereas the Oceanside portion is surrounded by residential development exclusively. The Buena Vista Lagoon 

is an area of open water surrounded by marshland. A landscape unit is a portion of the regional landscape and can be 

thought of as an outdoor room that exhibits a distinct visual character. As further discussed in Appendix A of this EA, 

the project site has been evaluated as two landscape units, the “Lagoon Landscape Unit” and the “Carlsbad Village 

Landscape Unit.”

Because it is not feasible to analyze all the views in which the Proposed Action would be seen, a number of Key 

Viewpoints were identified that most clearly represent the visual impacts of the project. Key Viewpoints also represent 

the primary viewer groups that would potentially be affected by the Proposed Action. Figure 3.1-1 shows the location 

and the viewing direction of each of the four Key Viewpoints selected for this analysis. The following are the four Key 

Viewpoints identified for the Proposed Action.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Key Viewpoint #1 looks southwest from the southernmost end of Broadway Street in a cul-de-sac. The view represents 

public views from Broadway Street. Since the view represents views from a cul-de-sac, the views from this key viewpoint 

represent public views from the street, the residential uses along the street, and potential recreational users of the 

undesignated trails within Buena Vista Lagoon. As shown in Figure 3.1-2, the view from Key Viewpoint #1 primarily 

consists of views of the railroad corridor and vegetation surrounding the lagoon. The foreground is marked with a white 

fence and a train signal house at CP Longboard to the southwest. The distant background to the south consists of the 

Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge over the railroad tracks and various residential units.

Key Viewpoint #2 looks southwest from the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge over the Buena Vista Lagoon. As shown in 

Figure 3.1-3, the view is dominated by the lagoon and the existing railroad alignment. The view includes mature 

vegetation in the foreground and scattered residential development in the background.

Key Viewpoint #3 looks south towards the Carlsbad Village Station from the station platform. As shown in Figure 3.1-

4, the view is of a completely developed landscape, featuring the NCTD parking lot to the east, the station to the 

southeast, and the railroad tracks and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Bus Station to the west.

Key Viewpoint #4 looks south from the railroad ROW at the Grand Avenue street crossing. As shown in Figure 3.1-5, 

the view is of a completely developed landscape, featuring railroad crossings in the foreground, the historical train 

station to the east, the railroad tracks to the south, and Rotary Park, a parking lot, and commercial development to the 

southwest. 

Sensitive Viewpoints. All of the Key Viewpoints are considered sensitive because they host substantial public views 

of the railroad ROW. However, none of the viewpoints are considered scenic vistas by the community. Since all four of 

the Key Viewpoints are visually sensitive, all four are analyzed below. Visual simulations from the viewpoints were 

prepared and are presented to assist in the analysis of impacts below.

3.1.2.2 Existing Visual Character

Based on the FHWA guidelines, “visual character” is descriptive and non-evaluative which means it is based on defined 

attributes that are neither good nor bad in themselves. Because visual resource qualities are subjective based upon 

viewer interpretation, a change in visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is 

compared with the viewer response to that change. If there is a public preference for the established visual character 

of a regional landscape and a resistance to a project that would contrast that character, then changes in visual character 

can be evaluated.

Lagoon Landscape Unit

The general characteristics of the area include natural and man-made features with landforms, vegetation, access, and 

human structures. The lagoon is a fresh-water wetland area that includes habitat with native and non-native vegetation 

(generally low-growing) and endangered species, as further described in the Biological Technical Report (Appendix C).

Although not visible from any significant public viewpoints within the landscape unit, the Pacific Ocean lies to the west 

of the landscape unit. Carlsbad Boulevard and Broadway Drive are the primary public viewing areas of the landscape 

unit. Other views with in the landscape unit are from the residential development surrounding the lagoon, which provide 

private and insensitive views. Overall, the area is considered somewhat rural and lacking development. 
FIGURE

3.1-1 Viewpoint Locations

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2014a 9/12/16

!(

!(

!(

!(

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

I-5 SB

STATE ST

CARLSBAD BL

I-5 NB

OCEAN ST

ALLEY

I-5 RA

JEFFERSON ST

GRAND AV

VISTA WY

BROADWAY

S COAST HY

ROOSEVELT ST

PACIFIC TR

S MYERS ST

LAGUNA DR

MADISON ST

S PACIFIC ST

S TREMONT ST

KELLY ST

OAK AV

EATON ST

CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

ALVARADO ST

S FREEMAN ST

PINE AV

S DITMAR ST

BEECH AV

ST MALO BEACH

TYLER ST

S NEVADA ST

CASSIDY ST

GARFIELD ST

S HORNE ST

DAVIS AV

CHRISTIANSEN WY

TUTTLE ST

PACIFIC AV

KNOWLES AV

HOME AV

LINCOLN ST

BUENA PL

CYPRESS AV

LAS FLORES DR

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE RD

MTN VIEW DR

PRIVATE DR

ARBUCKLE PL

KREMEYER CR

CABRILLO PL

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE RD

ALLEY

ALLEY

ALLEY

ALLEY

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

KELLY ST

ALLEY

ALLEY

OAK AV

EATON ST

BEECH AV

PRIVATE DY

2012 San Diego Imagery Acquisition Partnership (Flight Dates: May 20 -

June 6, 2012)

±

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Miles

3.1-3
FIGURE

3.1-2 Viewpoint 1

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2014a 9/12/16

3.1-4

Viewpoint 1 (Existing)

East of tracks, looking south across Buena Vista Lagoon

from the south end of the Broadway Street cul-de-sac in Oceanside

Viewpoint 1 (Photosimulation)
FIGURE

3.1-3 Viewpoint 2

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2014a 9/12/16

3.1-5

Viewpoint 2 (Existing)

East of tracks, looking south across Buena Vista Lagoon

from the Carlsbad Boulevard bridge

Viewpoint 2 (Photosimulation)
FIGURE

3.1-4 Viewpoint 3

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2014a 9/12/16

3.1-6

Viewpoint 3 (Existing)

East of tracks, looking south

from Carlsbad Village Station

Viewpoint 3 (Photosimulation)
FIGURE

3.1-5 Viewpoint 4

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2014a 9/12/16

3.1-7

Viewpoint 4 (Existing)

West of tracks, looking south toward Rotary Park

from Grand Avenue

Viewpoint 4 (Photosimulation)
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit

The general characteristics of this area include office, commercial, and residential development surrounding the railroad 

ROW. This development lines the railroad ROW on either side, so the railroad ROW is relatively obstructed from most 

public viewpoints within Carlsbad Village except for where the railroad ROW crosses at roadway intersections, Carlsbad 

Village Station and Rotary Park. Overall, the area is fully developed. 

3.1.2.3 Existing Visual Quality

Based on the FHWA guidelines, “visual quality” is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness and unity present 

in the viewshed. The FHWA states that this method should correlate with public judgments of visual quality well enough 

to predict those judgments. This approach to evaluating visual quality can also help identify specific methods for 

mitigating specific adverse impacts that may occur as a result of a project.

The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows:

Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual 

patterns.

Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. 

It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.

Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently 

attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.

Lagoon Landscape Unit

The general visual quality of the existing landscape unit is moderate-high (3.34) due to the lack of development within 

the lagoon and the small buffer between the lagoon and the residential development. The vividness of the landscape 

unit is high (4) due to the high memorability of the landscape. The intactness is moderate-high (3) due to the natural 

landscape’s freedom from encroaching elements. The unity is moderate-high (3) due to the landscapes semi-cohesive 

compromise between the built environment and the natural environment. 

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit

The general visual quality of the existing landscape unit is moderate (2) due to the abundance of development and the 

lack of blight and extensive maintenance. The village type development provides a moderate (2) level of vividness to 

the viewer. The intactness is low (1) due to the extensive development of the area. The cohesive village physical 

environment provides for a moderate-high (3) unity within the landscape unit.

3.1.2.4 Existing Viewer Sensitivity

Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the viewers’ response to change in the 

visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape 

components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis. The City of Oceanside 

and the City of Carlsbad have provided goals and design guidelines that indicate the residents’ values and expectations 

for their visual environment, as further detailed in Appendix A.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Lagoon Landscape Unit

The Buena Vista Lagoon is considered a visual resource according to the City of Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad 

General Plans and Local Coastal Programs. Since the Lagoon is considered to be a visual resource, the community is 

sensitive to the preservation of the Lagoon and its surrounding open space landscape. The existing railroad ROW is 

an existing use that extends through the Lagoon and has been accepted by the community as a long-term existing use.

The views from the railroad alignment are considered to be sensitive and are preserved. According to the City of 

Carlsbad Circulation Element a corridor is considered a “theme corridor” if the corridor connects Carlsbad with adjacent 

municipalities and presents the City of Carlsbad to persons entering and passing through the community. Carlsbad 

Boulevard is considered a “theme corridor” because it connects the City of Carlsbad to the City of Oceanside and 

represents the City of Carlsbad for those entering or passing through the community; and therefore, the views from the 

corridor are preserved. The natural open space and undesignated recreation corridors or trails throughout the Lagoon 

Landscape Unit are also sensitive viewsheds that are preserved. The Buena Vista Lagoon possesses a high (4) visual 

sensitivity.

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit

The Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit is comprised of a variety of development because it consists of residential and 

commercial structures, as well as the Tamarack State Beach. Although the area does not contain an extensive amount 

of open space within the developed area, the Village possesses a distinct character and urban aesthetic appeal that is 

preserved within the community. The beach area is included in the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit but is not visible 

or aesthetically affected by the existing railroad operations. According to the City of Carlsbad Circulation Element, 

Carlsbad Village Drive is considered a “Community Scenic Corridor” that leads to the beach. Since this is a prime 

corridor of the community, the views from the corridor are preserved and shall maintain their existing character. The 

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit possesses a moderate (2) viewer sensitivity. 

3.1.2.5 Existing Viewer Exposure

Viewer exposure is typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of 

viewer activity, duration of their view, the speed at which the viewer moves, and the position of the viewer. High viewer 

exposure heightens the importance of early consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing 

the visual resource impacts of a project. The Key Viewpoints represent views afforded to the viewer groups, as further 

discussed in Section 3.1.2.1.

Lagoon Landscape Unit

The Lagoon Landscape Unit is viewed by the train passengers, freeway/local roadway travelers along Broadway Drive 

and Carlsbad Boulevard, recreational users, and community residents. The overall viewer exposure level for the Lagoon 

Landscape Unit exposure level is the average from the above groups that are able to view the Lagoon Landscape Unit.

The overall viewer exposure for the Lagoon Landscape Unit is moderate (2).

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit

The Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit is viewed by the train passengers, freeway/local roadway travels along Grand 

Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive, recreational users of Rotary Park, office/commercial workers, and community 

residents. The overall viewer exposure level for the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit is the average from the above 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

groups that are able to view the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit. The overall viewer exposure for the Carlsbad Village 

Landscape Unit is moderate-high (3).

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would slightly expand the railroad infrastructure, which may cause a slight decrease in the visual 

quality of the area, but overall, the impact would be minimal as disturbed areas are revegetated, and the visual quality 

would remain moderate for the area. The analysis was carried out consistent with the FHWA guidelines to identify 

potential impacts to visual resources, as further described in Appendix A of this EA. 

Lagoon Landscape Unit

With implementation of the Proposed Action, the Lagoon Landscape Unit would not be substantially different from its 

existing visual quality and exposure. The Proposed Action would be consistent with an existing use within an area that 

is surrounded by open space. The Proposed Action would slightly expand the railroad infrastructure, which may cause 

a slight decrease in the visual quality of the area, but overall, the impact would be minimal and the visual quality would 

remain moderate-high for the area. 

The general visual quality of the existing landscape unit would remain moderate-high (3.34) due to the lack of 

development within the lagoon and the small buffer between the lagoon and the residential development. The vividness 

of the landscape unit would remain high (4) due to the high memorability of the landscape. The intactness would 

continue to remain moderate-high (3) due to the natural landscape’s freedom from encroaching elements. The unity 

would continue to remain moderate-high (3) due to the landscapes semi-cohesive compromise between the built 

environment and the natural environment. 

As mentioned above, the Buena Vista Lagoon is considered a visual resource according to the General Plans and 

Local Coastal Programs of the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside. Since the Lagoon is considered to be a visual 

resource, the community is sensitive to the preservation of the Lagoon and its surrounding open space landscape.

Since the railroad ROW is an existing use that extends through the Lagoon and has been accepted by the community 

as a long-term existing use, the Proposed Action would not affect the sensitivity of the Landscape Unit. The Buena 

Vista Lagoon would continue to possess a high (4) visual sensitivity. The Lagoon Landscape Unit would continue to be 

exposed to the train passengers, freeway/local roadway travelers along Broadway Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, 

recreational users, and community residents. The overall viewer exposure level for the Lagoon Landscape Unit 

exposure level is the average from the above groups that are able to view the Lagoon Landscape Unit. The overall 

viewer exposure for the Lagoon Landscape Unit is moderate (2). Overall, the visual response would remain moderatehigh (3) with implementation of the Proposed Action.

The overall visual quality of the Proposed Action upon the Lagoon Landscape Unit would not be adverse and visual 

character and quality and viewer sensitivity and exposure would remain as existing.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit

With implementation the Proposed Action, the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit would not be substantially different 

from its existing visual quality and exposure. The Proposed Action would be consistent with an existing use within the 

existing railroad ROW that is surrounded by development. The Proposed Action would slightly expand the railroad 

infrastructure, which could potentially cause a slight decrease in the visual quality of the area, but overall, the impact 

would be minimal and the visual quality would remain moderate for the area. 

The general visual quality of the existing landscape unit with implementation of the Proposed Action would continue to 

remain moderate (2) with the continued maintenance of the area. The village type development would continue to 

provide a moderate (2) level of vividness to the viewer. The intactness would continue to remain low (1) due to the 

extensive development in the area. The cohesive village physical environment would provide for a moderate-high (3) 

unity within the landscape unit.

As mentioned above, the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit is comprised of a variety of development and the beach. 

Although the area does not contain an extensive amount of open space within the Developed Segment, the Village 

possesses a distinct character and urban aesthetic appeal that is preserved within the community. According to the 

City of Carlsbad Circulation Element, Carlsbad Village Drive is considered a “Community Scenic Corridor” that leads 

to the beach. Since this is a prime corridor of the community, the views from the corridor are preserved and shall 

maintain their existing character. The Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit would continue to possess a moderate (2) 

viewer sensitivity. The Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit would continue to be exposed to the train passengers, 

freeway/local roadway travels along Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive, office/commercial workers, and 

community residents. The overall viewer exposure level for the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit exposure level is the 

average from the above groups that are able to view the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit. The overall viewer exposure 

for the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit would continue to be moderate-high (3) with implementation of the Proposed 

Action. Overall, the visual response would remain moderate (2.5) with implementation of the Proposed Action.

The overall visual quality of the Proposed Action upon the Carlsbad Village Landscape Unit would not be adverse and 

visual character and quality and viewer sensitivity and exposure would remain as existing.

No Action Alternative

If the Proposed Action is not implemented, the existing visual quality would remain as described in the Section 3.1.2 –

Affected Environment above. 

3.1.3.1 Potential Visual Impacts to Train Travelers

Proposed Action

With implementation of the Proposed Action, the visual impacts to the train travelers would remain the same as the 

existing views because the Proposed Action would remain within the existing railroad ROW, which is relatively linear 

for this segment of the LOSSAN corridor. Presently, views from the train are limited due to movement but consist of 

views of the Buena Vista Lagoon open space and Carlsbad Village development. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Areas directly adjacent and below the train would be difficult to view from the train, but some of the mature riparian 

vegetation in the Buena Vista Lagoon would be removed and fill soil would be deposited to allow for construction access 

and space for the additional track. Views of these improvements would be difficult to see from the train due to the 

improvements location being directly underneath and adjacent to the trains that pass through. The Proposed Action 

would restore vegetation lost during construction, but it would take several years to fully restore the mature vegetation 

that would be lost.

The level of the visual impact to train passengers relates to the visual sensitivity of passengers on future trains. Many 

passengers are focused on reading a paper, a book or magazine, or working on a computer, when riding the train.

These riders would not be sensitive viewers. Others focus on the scenery that is afforded from the train, and these 

would be the more sensitive viewers. The Proposed Action would primarily offer views of Buena Vista Lagoon open 

space and the Carlsbad Village development. Therefore, with implementation of the Proposed Action, the train 

passenger’s view would not be substantially impacted.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would pose no additional adverse impacts to viewers from the train for this segment of the 

LOSSAN Corridor. The existing visual conditions in the Buena Vista Lagoon and Carlsbad Village would not change 

and sensitive viewers would continue to experience the same visual resources that exist today, as described in Section 

3.1.2 – Affected Environment above.

3.1.3.2 Analysis of Key Viewpoints

As noted above, the Proposed Action would be visible from train passengers and from the four Key Viewpoints chosen 

for this analysis. The resulting visual impacts to these viewpoints and associated viewers are described below. As 

shown in Figures 3.1-2 to 3.1-5, visual simulations were prepared for these four viewpoints in order to better understand 

the visual impact of the Proposed Action from these four locations.

Key Viewpoint #1

Key Viewpoint #1 represents views from the Broadway Street cul-de-sac and the adjacent undesignated recreational 

trails.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would create access roads and remove some existing vegetation and add fill to the Buena Vista 

Lagoon within the railroad ROW during construction. The access roads would be revegetated and the fill would remain 

during operation of the Proposed Action. From this viewpoint, the overall character of the area would remain consistent 

with the existing character, because the open space of the Lagoon mostly would remain as existing and all 

improvements would be contained within the existing railroad ROW, which has been operational through this corridor 

for more than a century.

The Proposed Action would not create a substantial change in existing character. The Proposed Action would maintain 

the moderate-high (3) visual quality and a moderate-high (3) viewer response of the viewshed, resulting in a moderatehigh (3) visual impact with implementation of the Proposed Action. In other words, the visual quality of the Proposed 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-13 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Action area from this Key Viewpoint would be slightly reduced as additional fill is added to the viewshed, but the overall 

visual quality would remain moderate-high from the viewer’s perspective. 

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not impact the existing visual setting at Key Viewpoint #1.

Key Viewpoint #2

Key Viewpoint #2 represents views from the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge.

Proposed Action

Similar to Key Viewpoint #1, construction the Proposed Action would create access roads and remove some existing 

vegetation and add fill to the Buena Vista Lagoon within the railroad ROW that would be visible from this Key Viewpoint.

The access roads would be revegetated and the fill would remain during operation of the Proposed Action. From this

viewpoint, the overall character of the area would remain consistent with the existing character, because the open 

space of the lagoon mostly would remain as existing and all improvements would be contained within the existing 

railroad ROW, which has been operational through this corridor for more than a century.

The Proposed Action would not create a substantial change in existing character. The Proposed Action would maintain 

the moderate-high (3) visual quality and a moderate-high (3.5) viewer response of the viewshed, resulting in a 

moderate-high (3.25) visual impact with implementation of the Proposed Action. In other words, the visual impact of 

the Proposed Action area from this Key Viewpoint would be slightly reduced as additional fill is added to the viewshed, 

but the overall visual quality would remain moderate-high. 

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not impact the existing visual setting at Key Viewpoint #2.

Key Viewpoint #3

Key Viewpoint #3 represents views from the Carlsbad Village Station Platform and offers views of the Carlsbad Village 

Station, the platform, the railroad tracks, the bus station, and the parking lot.

Proposed Action

As shown in Figure 3.1-4, the existing platform would be removed and replaced with a new narrower platform (including 

all new amenities such as benches, signage, and hardscaping), an additional railroad track alignment, a fence dividing 

the two railroad tracks, a pedestrian undercrossing, bus station, and parking lot improvements. The entire viewshed is 

currently developed and would be redeveloped, so no open space would be converted to development within this 

viewshed. The viewshed does not contain any designated scenic resources.

The Proposed Action would not create a substantial change in existing character. With implementation of the Proposed 

Action the visual quality would remain moderate-high (3). The viewer response of the viewshed would remain moderatehigh (3), resulting in a moderate-high (3) visual impact with implementation of the Proposed Action. No adverse visual 

impacts were identified with implementation of the Proposed Action from this Key Viewpoint, all visual impacts would 

be considered negligible.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-14 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not impact the existing visual setting at Key Viewpoint #3.

Key Viewpoint #4

Key Viewpoint #4 represents views from where the railroad tracks cross Grand Avenue. The viewshed is completely 

developed with railroad signal crossings in the foreground, the historical train station to the east, the railroad tracks to 

the south, and Rotary Park, a parking lot, and commercial development to the southwest. 

Proposed Action

As shown in Figure 3.1-5, the existing railroad track alignment would be shifted to the west and an additional track 

would be aligned parallel to the east of the existing track with adequate separation in between. The railroad crossings 

would be shifted farther to the west in order to accommodate the new track alignments. The historical train station to 

the east would remain as is. The Proposed Action would encroach approximately three feet into the Rotary Park to 

accommodate the realigned track; thus, removing some vegetation and trimming the existing trees that are directly 

adjacent to the railroad ROW within the three-foot encroachment. The three feet that would be removed from the park 

is currently part of the railroad ROW; and therefore, no additional land would be acquired outside of the existing railroad 

ROW. The entire viewshed is currently developed and would be redeveloped, so no open space would be converted 

to development within this viewshed. The viewshed does not contain any designated scenic resources.

The Proposed Action would not create a substantial change in existing character. With implementation of the Proposed 

Action the visual quality would be slightly reduced to moderate (2.34) due to the removal of minimal vegetation. The 

viewer response of the viewshed would remain moderate (2.5), resulting in a moderate (2.42) visual impact with 

implementation of the Proposed Action. Minimal adverse visual impacts were identified with implementation of the 

Proposed Action from this Key Viewpoint; therefore, all visual impacts would be considered negligible.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not impact the existing visual setting at Key Viewpoint #4.

3.1.3.3 Overall Visual Impact of the Proposed Action

Proposed Action

The overall visual impact for the Landscape Units with implementation of the Proposed Action would remain as existing.

The overall visual impact from each sensitive viewpoint represents the average visual impact of all of the sensitive 

viewpoints combined. The Proposed Action would result in a moderate (2.92) visual impact, which is only a slight 

adverse visual change from the existing moderate-high (3.03) visual impact. The Proposed Action would not cause a 

substantial adverse change to the overall existing visual impact because the Proposed Action would be located within 

the existing railroad ROW and replace the existing use with an additional alignment.

No Action Alternative

If the Proposed Action is not implemented, the existing overall visual impact would remain as described in the Section 

3.1.2 – Affected Environment above. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-15 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required because there is no overall visual impact. The visual quality and character and viewer 

response and sensitivity would remain the same or negligibly change from existing conditions.

3.1.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action would pose negligible visual impacts to the project area and no mitigation measures are required.

Since no mitigation is required, there would be no impact of mitigation. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.1 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.1-16 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Information contained in this section is summarized from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 

Technical Report prepared for the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project, prepared by Pan 

Environmental, Inc. (Pan, 2013). This document is provided as Appendix B of this EA. 

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

3.2.1.1 Federal Laws and Regulations 

A. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

EPA is also responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required 

under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. 

B. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

As required by the CAA, the NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide 

(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and 

less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Federal standards are summarized in Table 

3.2-1.

Table 3.2-1

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

Concentrations

State Standards

(CAAQS)

Federal Standards

(NAAQS)

Ozone (O3) 8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.070 ppm

1 hour 0.09 ppm NA

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8 hours 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm

1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm 0.053 ppm

1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.10 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

24 hours 0.04 ppm NA

1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm

3 hours NA 0.5 ppm

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 NA

24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

Particulate Matter –

fine (PM2.5)

Primary annual arithmetic 

mean

No Separate State 

Standard 12 μg/m3

Secondary annual 

arithmetic mean No Separate State 

Standard 15 μg/m3

24 hours

No Separate State 

Standard 35 μg/m3
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Pollutant Averaging Time

Concentrations

State Standards

(CAAQS)

Federal Standards

(NAAQS)

Lead (Pb)

Rolling 3-month Average No Separate State 

Standard 0.15 μg/m3

Quarterly Average No Separate State 

Standard 1.5 μg/m3

30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 NA

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm NA

Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3 NA

Vinyl Chloride 

(chloroethene) 24 hours 0.01 ppm NA

Visibility-Reducing 

Particles

8 hours (10:00 a.m. to 

6:00 p.m. Pacific 

Standard Time)

Extinction coefficient of 

0.23 kilometer—visibility of 

10 miles or more due to 

particles when relative 

humidity is less than 70 

percent.

NA

Notes: mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter; NA=no standard implemented; ppm=part per million; μg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter [a] EPA 

Region 9, correspondence states that the old PM2.5 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 be utilized as this standard was the standard provided 

when the State Implementation Plan (SIP) was last approved.

Source: Pan Environmental, Inc., 2013

General Conformity Rule

The 1990 Amendment to CAA Section 176 requires the EPA to promulgate rules to ensure that federal actions in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas conform to the appropriate State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules, known 

as the General Conformity Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51.850-51.860 and 93.150-93.160), 

require any federal agency responsible for an action in a nonattainment/maintenance area to determine whether that 

action conforms to the applicable SIP, is exempt from the General Conformity Rule requirements. According to Section 

176 of the CAA, conformity to an SIP means that federally supported or funded activities would not (1) cause or 

contribute to any new air quality standard violation, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing standard 

violation, or (3) delay the timely attainment of any standard, interim emission reduction, or other milestones. Since the 

Proposed Action requires FRA approval, it is subject to compliance with the General Conformity Rule. The scope of 

the rule is limited to non-attainment or maintenance areas for criteria pollutants and does not include Mobile Sources 

Air Toxics or Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).

An action would conform to a SIP and be exempt from a conformity determination if the action is within one of the 

exemption categories specified by the General Conformity Rule. An action would also conform to a SIP and be exempt 

from a conformity determination if an applicability analysis shows that the total direct and indirect emissions from the 

action would be less than specified emission thresholds, known as federal de minimis levels.

C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. GHGs include, but are not limited 

to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), O3, 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). There are currently no federal 

requirements for evaluation. See 3.2.1.2 C for state requirements. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

D. Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxic air contaminants (also referred to as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics) are air pollutants that may cause 

adverse health effects, particularly cancerous or noncancerous effects. Toxic air contaminants are substances listed in 

EPA’s hazardous air pollutant program or California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 or AB 2588 air toxics programs.

Toxic air contaminants are not considered criteria air pollutants because the federal and state agencies do not address 

them specifically through the setting of NAAQS. Instead, EPA regulates toxic air pollutants through statutes and 

regulations.

EPA has established “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants” as required by the CAA Amendments. 

These include source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of such pollutants. In 2007, EPA finalized a 

rule to reduce hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources. In this rule, EPA identified 93 hazardous air pollutants 

emitted from mobile sources, and the health effects and characteristics of each pollutant are described in the EPA 

Integrated Risk Information System. 

The state regulates toxic air contaminants primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics

Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588).

3.2.1.2 State Laws and Regulations

A. State Ambient Air Quality Standards

In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which became part of the California Environmental Protection 

Agency (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA, administering the 

California Clean Air Act (CCAA), and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CCAA 

requires all State air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more stringent 

than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl 

chloride and visibly reducing particles. State standards are summarized in Table 3.2-1 above. CARB regulates mobile 

air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles 

sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB 

oversees the functions of local Air Pollution Control Districts and air quality management districts, which in turn 

administer air quality activities at the regional and county levels.

B. State Implementation Plan

Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of O3, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM10 to develop plans, known as 

a SIP, which describes how a region would attain the NAAQS. The SIP consists of many elements, including regional 

air pollutant emission inventories, rules and regulations, and control measures for stationary and mobile sources. The 

CARB adopted the SIP in 1994.

In 2015, EPA established a new federal 8-hour standard for O3 of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). EPA previously 

identified 16 areas in California, including the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) that violated the 2008 8-hour O3 standard 

(0.075ppm). Each non-attainment area’s classification and attainment deadline was based on the severity of its O3

problem. SIPs demonstrating attainment of the new federal O3 standard must be adopted by the local air districts and 

CARB, and submitted to EPA.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders (EO) regarding GHGs.

GHG statues and executive orders include AB 32, SB 97, SB 375, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-

07 as further described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Technical Report (Appendix B).

3.2.1.3 Local Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

A. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

The County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) operates entirely within the SDAB and has jurisdiction 

over the entire area of San Diego County. The APCD is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well as planning, 

implementing and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards 

in the district. Programs that were developed include air quality rules and regulations that regulate stationary source, 

area source, point source and certain mobile source emissions. The APCD is also responsible for establishing 

permitting requirements for stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified or relocated stationary sources do not 

create net emission increases to be consistent with the region’s air quality goals.

B. Regional Air Quality Strategy Plan

Under the requirements of the CCAA, each air basin is required to develop its own strategies to achieve both state and 

federal air quality standards. The continued violations of ambient air quality standards in the SDAB, particularly for O3

in inland foothill areas, require that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that would be undertaken to 

improve air quality. In the San Diego region, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality 

Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG. The RAQS serves as APCD’s blueprint to reduce 

smog-forming emissions and provides feasible emission control measures for mobile and stationary sources within San 

Diego County.

San Diego County’s Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan was finalized in May 2007 and outlines emission control 

strategies that would be implemented in order to reduce O3 emissions throughout the County. Strategies in the 

Attainment Plan include creating allowable emission budgets and control measures for stationary sources through 

adoption of rules, permits, inspections and testing. The RAQS outlines APCD’s plans and control measures designed 

to attain the state air quality standards for O3.

C. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan

The Regional Plan was adopted by SANDAG on October 9, 2015. Chapter 2—A Strategy for Sustainability: Smart 

Growth and environmental protection through transportation choices—includes the components of the Sustainable 

Communities Strategy required by SB 375.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

Pollutant emissions from sources and atmospheric interactions determine the quality of air. The pollution effect on 

receptors establishes the extent to which air quality is degraded. Air quality in a given location is described by the 

concentration of various air pollutants in the atmosphere, expressed in units of ppm or micrograms per cubic meter 

(μ/m3). Both long-term climate factors and short-term weather fluctuations that control pollution dispersion conditions 

and affect concentration levels are considered part of the air quality resource. Physical effects of ambient air quality 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

within an area depend on the characteristics of receptors and the type, amount, and duration of pollutants in the ambient 

air that are consistent with the goal of preventing harmful effects. Information regarding the location and nature of all 

significant emission sources is important to establish the air quality in the area.

3.2.2.1 Air Basin

The Proposed Action is located within the SDAB, an area of mild Mediterranean Climate, with moderate year-round 

temperatures. A repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore 

breezes, and little temperature change is characteristic of the San Diego climate throughout the year. 

Meteorological and climatological conditions influence ambient air quality. The climate of the San Diego region is 

characterized by warm, dry summers and mild winters, and is dominated by a semi-permanent, high-pressure cell 

located over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell maintains clear skies for much of the year, drives the dominant 

onshore circulation, and helps create two types of temperature inversions, subsidence and radiation, that contribute to 

local air quality degradation. Subsidence inversions occur during warmer months as descending air associated with 

the Pacific Ocean high-pressure cell comes into contact with cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of 

air is a temperature inversion that traps pollutants below it. Radiation inversions typically develop on winter nights with 

low wind speeds, when air near the ground cools by radiation and the air aloft remains warm. A shallow inversion layer 

that can trap pollutants is formed between the two layers.

In Carlsbad, the normal daily maximum temperature is 75.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in August, and the normal daily 

minimum temperature is 46.6°F in December. The normal precipitation in Carlsbad is 9.93 inches annually, occurring 

primarily from November through February. The annual mean wind speed is 4.6 miles per hour (mph).

In Oceanside, the normal daily maximum temperature is 76.7°F in August, and the normal daily minimum temperature 

is 39.1°F in December. The normal precipitation in Oceanside is 10.37 inches annually, occurring primarily from 

December through February. The annual mean wind speed is 4.1 mph.

3.2.2.2 Attainment Areas

As required by the Federal CAA, the EPA has established the NAAQS for major air pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM, 

and Pb. An area is classified as “attainment" if the primary NAAQS have been achieved and "nonattainment" if the 

NAAQS are not achieved. Once a previously designated nonattainment area meets the standards and additional 

redesignation requirements in the CAA [Section 107(d)(3)(E)], EPA will designate the area as a “maintenance area.”

Under the Federal standard, San Diego County is in non-attainment for 8-hour O3 and a maintenance area for CO. All 

other pollutants are in attainment of Federal standards. 

3.2.2.3 Major Air Pollutants

The SDAB is designated and classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the federal O3 standard. The SDAB is 

also currently designated by CARB as nonattainment for the state O3, PM10 and PM2.5 standards; attainment for CO, 

NO2, SO2, Pb, sulfates; and unclassified for hydrogen sulfide and visibility. An area designated as unclassified for a 

pollutant is one in which insufficient data exists to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment (17 Code of 

California Regulations (CCR) 70305). 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Regional air quality is monitored locally by the APCD in conjunction with the CARB. The Camp Pendleton monitoring 

facility is the closest air quality monitoring station to the Proposed Action, approximately 5 miles northwest of the project

site. This station monitors ambient O3 concentrations. The Escondido monitoring facility, located approximately 15 miles 

southeast of the project site, provides monitoring data for NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. The monitored ambient SO2

concentrations are from the Downtown San Diego station.

Table 3.2-2 presents a summary of the highest air pollutant concentrations monitored at these stations during three 

years (2010-2012) for which the APCD has reported data. As further described in Table 3.2-2, over the three years,

CO and NO2 concentrations in the project area have been well below the 1-hour and 8-hour federal and state standards 

and no exceedances have been recorded within the three-year time period. Concentrations collected demonstrate that 

the area has generally exceeded the 8-hour O3 federal and state standards, and recorded 1-hour concentrations of O3

maintained the state standard of 0.09 ppm. PM2.5 and PM10 have generally been below federal and state standards. 

PM2.5 has exceeded federal standards once in 2012, and PM10 has exceeded state standards once in 2010.

Concentrations levels for PM10 have steadily declined over the three-year time period and have not exceeded federal 

standards.

Table 3.2-2

Ambient Air Quality Summary

Pollutant Average 

Time NAAQS CAAQS Maximum Concentrations

2012 2011 2010

O3

1 hour - 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

8 hours 0.075 0.070 0.08 0.07 0.08

PM10

24 hours 150 50 33 40 42

Annual - 20 18.0 18.8 20.9

PM2.5

24 hours 35 - 71 27 33

Annual 12 12 10.5 10.4 10.5

CO 8 hours 9 9.0 3.8 2.3 2.5

1 hour 35 20 4.4 3.5 3.9

NO2

Annual 0.053 0.030 0.012 0.013 0.014

1 hour 0.100 0.18 0.062 0.062 0.064

SO2

Annual 0.030 - - 0.001 0.000

24 hours 0.140 0.04 - 0.002 0.002

1 hour 0.075 0.25 - 0.013 0.008

Note: The unit for O3, CO, NO2, and SO2 is parts per million (ppm), and the unit for PM10 and PM2.5 is micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3).

Source: Pan Environmental, Inc., 2013.

3.2.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxic air contaminants (also referred to as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics) are air pollutants that may cause 

adverse health effects, particularly cancer or noncancerous effects. Toxic air contaminants are substances listed in the 

EPA’s hazardous air pollutant program or California’s AB 1807 or AB 2588 air toxics program. Toxic air contaminants 

are not criteria air pollutants because the federal and state agencies do not address them specifically through the 

setting of NAAQS or CAAQS. Instead, the EPA and CARB regulate toxic air pollutants through statutes and regulations.

EPA has established “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants” as required by the CAA Amendments.

These include source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of such pollutants. In 2007, EPA finalized a 

rule to reduce hazardous air pollutants form mobile sources. In this rule, EPA identified 93 hazardous air pollutants 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

emitted from mobile sources, and the health effects and characteristics of each pollutant are described in the EPA 

Integrated Risk Information System.

3.2.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are defined as those naturally occurring and anthropogenic (derived from human activities) chemical 

compounds within the atmosphere that absorb and reflect infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. The 

remaining infrared radiation that is not absorbed by these gases escapes into space. This natural warming process that 

occurs in the Earth’s atmosphere is known as the greenhouse effect. In 2008, California accounted for approximately 

seven percent of U.S. emissions. Global climate change gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, CO2, CH4, 

N2O, O3, HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. The introduction of synthetic GHGs (HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) has 

resulted in an overall increase in GHGs in the atmosphere, which has led to a phenomenon referred to as the enhanced 

greenhouse effect. This increase in GHGs in the atmosphere has led to more infrared radiation being reradiated to the 

Earth’s surface and less radiation escaping into space, which leads to an overall warming of the Earth. Additionally, 

synthetic GHGs break down the Earth’s natural atmospheric O3 layer. 

In 2011, CARB developed the statewide GHG emission inventory for 2000 through 2009. According to CARB, total 

gross California GHG emissions in 2009 were 457 million metric tons of CO2e. The transportation sector accounted for 

approximately 38% of the total GHG emissions, whereas the industrial sector accounted for approximately 20%.

Emissions from electricity generation were about 23%, with almost equal contributions from in-state and imported 

electricity.

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

3.2.3.1 Operational Impacts

The Proposed Action is one of the projects listed under the Rail Improvements Alternative of the LOSSAN Program.

The purpose of the Rail Improvements Alternative is to support growth for demand in the LOSSAN corridor rail services 

and improve rail operations and reliability. The Project has been previously addressed in the LOSSAN Final PEIR/PEIS 

and in key regional and corridor plans including the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (The Regional Plan) 

(SANDAG, 2015a) and Final EIR (SANDAG 2015b). Pursuant to 176(c) of the federal CAA (42 USC Section 7506(c)), 

the Regional Plan must conform to the SIP for air quality. This conformity determination was issued December 2, 2015 

and means that transportation activities will not create new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay 

the attainment of the NAAQS. The transportation network improvements identified in the Regional Plan include doubletracking the LOSSAN Corridor and this Proposed Action is included in the network improvements. Therefore, the Air 

Quality/GHG analyses is a project-level, rather than a regional-level analysis because of the inclusion in The Regional 

Plan implies that the Proposed Action’s operational emissions meet the conformity requirements imposed by U.S. EPA, 

CARB and the APCD. The following air quality impacts discussion was evaluated qualitatively using the conclusions 

provided in the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS and The Regional Plan Final EIR.

Conformity Analysis 

Train trips associated with the Proposed Action would be increased by 51 trips in 2030 (SANDAG 2013d); therefore, 

air pollutant emissions from locomotives would potentially be increased compared to existing conditions, as further 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

discussed in the infrastructure Development Plan for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, August 2013. However, stringent 

regulations and requirements for locomotives have been published by the EPA and CARB, resulting in anticipated 

decreases in locomotive emissions over time. The EPA has adopted Tier 4 emission standards for locomotives to be 

implemented in 2015. Tier 4 standards are expected to provide a 76 percent reduction in nitric oxide and nitrogen 

dioxide (NOx) emissions and a 70 percent reduction in PM emissions over current Tier 2 standards. In addition, CARB 

supports the use of locomotives built with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction. Implementation of 

these features is expected to provide up to a 90% reduction in NOx and PM emissions. The useful life of a locomotive 

engine is approximately 10 years and, because the rate of growth in freight rail is higher in the western U.S. than the 

rest of the country, the BNSF (and other west coast rail operators) is likely to have a more rapid locomotive turnover 

rate (older units replaced with new or overhauled units), increasing the ratio of newer, lower emission units to older 

units in its fleet (FRA, 2009).

In addition, the Proposed Action would result in beneficial reductions in emissions in localized areas by decreasing rail 

congestion and associated locomotive idling time along the corridor and by improving two at-grade crossings where 

vehicular traffic delays now occur and replacing an at grade pedestrian crossing at the station with a pedestrian 

underpass. In addition, increases in train trips could reduce the use of passenger vehicles and freight hauling trucks on 

regional roadways, which would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and idling time on streets, resulting in air pollutant 

emission reductions in the region. Increased train ridership and associated reduction in VMTs translates into a reduction 

in CO emissions, which would be beneficial to the SDAB since it is currently designated as a maintenance area for CO.

With a reduction in vehicle emissions of CO and locomotive emissions of NOx (an ozone precursor), implementation of 

the Proposed Action would not result in an increase in criteria pollutants for which the SDAB is currently designated as 

a maintenance or nonattainment area under federal NAAQS. Therefore, there would be no adverse operational impacts 

to air quality from operation of the Proposed Action and there would be no conflict with local air quality attainment or 

maintenance plans to achieve or maintain federal ambient air quality standards.

Greenhouse Gases

As noted above, the Proposed Action is one of the projects included in the LOSSAN Program. As a result of the 51 

trips per day increase in train trips by 2030 associated with the Proposed Action, GHG emissions could potentially 

increase. However, future operations would employ system enhancements that would result in beneficial reductions in 

emissions in localized areas by decreasing rail congestion and associated locomotive idling time. In addition, new 

emission standards for locomotives will reduce GHG associated with operations. Increased ridership and freight trains 

translates to reduced VMT’s and less GHG emissions associated with vehicle use. Therefore, there is not an adverse 

impact to air quality associated with operational GHG emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with rail operations would be the primary source of air toxics 

impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. While train trips would be increased, the Proposed Action is designed to 

reduce train congestion and delays along the corridor, which would reduce locomotive idling time. Reductions in 

locomotive idling time would substantially decrease DPM emissions. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation 

measures specified in the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS, including installation of diesel particulate filters, fleet turnover to newer 

technologies, and reduction of idling time through infrastructure improvements and automatic anti-idling devices 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

installed on locomotives. These measures would further reduce DPM emissions from locomotives. As previously 

mentioned, the EPA has adopted Tier 4 emission standards for locomotives to be implemented in 2015. The CARB 

also supports the introduction of locomotives built with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction, which 

would substantially reduce DPM emissions from locomotives. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not be expected 

to have an adverse air toxics impact.

Odor Impact

The apparent presence of an odor in ambient air depends on the properties of the substance emitted, its concentration 

in facility emissions, and dilution of emissions between the emissions point and sensitive receptors. Locomotives would 

generate a certain number of odors during operation. Odors would be attributable to concentrations of unburned 

hydrocarbons from fuel combustions. Unburned hydrocarbon emissions from locomotives would typically be small when 

the locomotives are operating at cruising speeds. Since, the Proposed Action will increase rail operation efficiency and 

decrease idling times, substantial amounts of odor will not be generated. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Action 

would not result in adverse odor impacts.

3.2.3.2 Construction Impacts 

General Conformity

Estimated annual air pollutant emissions during construction phases are shown in Table 3.2-3. The model output files 

are included in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B of this EIR).

The air pollutant emissions were estimated to be below the de minimis limits for non-attainment and maintenance 

criteria pollutants (Table 3.2-3). Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have adverse impacts on air quality during 

construction.

Table 3.2-3

Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions

Year

Estimated Maximum Annual Air Pollutant Emissions

(tons/year)

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2016 0.74 7.77 4.68 <0.01 0.81 0.56

2017 1.56 15.83 9.02 0.02 0.83 0.76

2018 0.53 5.40 3.20 <0.01 0.27 0.25

De Minimis level 100 100 100 NA NA NA

Exceeds De Minimis 

level? No No No -- -- --

Note: VOC is Volatile Organic Compound

Source: Pan Environmental, Inc., 2013.

Greenhouse Gases

Table 3.2-4 summarizes the annual GHG emissions associated with the construction of the Proposed Action. There is 

no FRA-adopted standard for GHG emissions.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.2-4

Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions

Year

Estimated Annual GHG Emissions

(metric tons/year)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e

2016 657.94 0.19 0.00 661.83

2017 1,433.67 0.41 0.00 1,442.28

2018 532.05 0.15 0.00 535.25

Source: Pan Environmental, Inc., 2013.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxic air contaminants would be emitted from heavy-duty equipment during construction. DPM is known to contain high 

concentration of carcinogenic compounds. Risks associated with these compounds are typically evaluated on a lifetime 

of chronic exposure (that is, 24 hours a day, seven days per week, 365 days a year for 70 years). Because the 

construction related emission of diesel exhaust would only occur for three years, construction activities would not result 

in chronic long-term exposure. Therefore, air quality impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial 

air toxic contaminants associated with construction of the Proposed Action would not be adverse.

Odor Impacts

Certain amounts of odors would be generated from vehicles and equipment tailpipe exhaust emissions during 

construction of the Proposed Action. Odors would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from fuel 

combustion. However, these are typically small and construction of the Proposed Action would not cause adverse odor 

impacts.

No Action Alternative

3.2.3.3 Operational Impacts

If the Proposed Action is not implemented, future population growth in the SDAB likely would result in greater traffic 

congestion and increased VMT in personal passenger vehicles. This could result in increased air emissions even with 

future improved emissions controls. As such, under the No Action Alternative, there may be increased emissions of air 

pollutants, GHGs and air toxics associated with vehicle emissions. Freight and passenger train trips would increase 

from 50 trips per day (current) to approximately 101 trips per day in San Diego County by 2030/2040. This would 

increase rail congestion and, consequently, idling time. As a result, train related emissions would be more under the 

No Action Alternative than the Proposed Action.

In addition, the No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with the overarching goal of The Regional Plan for the San 

Diego Region to provide a variety of transportation choices. The Regional Plan also describes how the San Diego 

Region will meet mandated GHG emission reductions based on alternative transportation projects. 

3.2.3.4 Construction Impacts

The No Action alternative would not involve construction. Therefore, no construction related criteria pollutant, GHG or 

air toxic emissions would be generated and no associated adverse air quality impacts would occur.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

It has been determined that operational air quality and GHG emission impacts resulting from implementation of the 

Proposed Action would be beneficial, specifically from reducing emissions in localized areas by decreasing rail 

congestion and associated locomotive idling time along the corridor and by improving two at-grade crossings where 

vehicular traffic delays now occur and replacing an at grade pedestrian crossing at the Carlsbad Village Coaster Station 

with a pedestrian underpass. In addition, increases in train trips from 50 to 101 per day would reduce the use of 

passenger vehicles and freight hauling trucks on regional roadways, which would reduce vehicle travel miles and idling 

time on streets, resulting in emission reductions in the region. It has also been shown above that construction of the 

Proposed Action will not exceed de minimis thresholds for pollutant emissions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are 

required during construction of the Proposed Action or future railroad operations associated with the Proposed Action. 

However, SANDAG would implement the certain avoidance and minimization measures to further reduce air quality 

impacts.

SANDAG would implement the following avoidance and minimization measures during construction:

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all trucks maintain at least two 

feet of freeboard.

• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking 

areas and staging areas at construction sites.

• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction 

sites.

• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive 

for ten days or more).

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

• Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible.

• Minimize equipment idling time.

• Maintain properly tuned equipment.

SANDAG would implement the following avoidance and minimization measures during operations:

• Install diesel particulate filters on locomotives.

• Use liquefied natural gas for engines.

• Reduce idling time to reduce DPM and other emissions.

• Install anti-idling devices on locomotives, designed to automatically shut-off the main diesel internal 

combustion engine used for locomotive motive power after a specified time period when specified parameters 

(e.g., engine water temperature, ambient temperature, battery charge, railcar brake pressure, etc.) are at 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.2-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

acceptable levels, and then automatically restart the engine when parameters are no longer at acceptable 

levels.

• Retrofit head-end power sources in passenger locomotives with after-treatment technologies to reduce 

emissions.

• Use a combination of lean-NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filter.

• Design stations and associated ingress/egress to provide efficient vehicle movements, to reduce idling time 

and congestion.

3.2.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in negligible adverse air quality and GHG emission impacts and 

potentially beneficial impacts to air quality and GHG emissions. Mitigation measures are not required and therefore will 

not have an impact.

No Action

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not require mitigation. Because no mitigation is required, there would 

be no impact of mitigation measures.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

The information provided in this section is based on the information contained in the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village 

Double-Track Biological Technical Report (Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2016), attached as Appendix C of this EA.

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting

3.3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

The ESA of 1973 and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of listed species or candidates for listing 

as endangered or threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed plants, wildlife, and resident fish, and the National Oceanic Atmosphere 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals.

3.3.1.2 ESA Authorization Process for Federal Actions (Section 7)

Section 7 of the ESA applies to actions that are conducted, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency. Under ESA 

Section 7, the lead Federal agency conducting, funding, or permitting an action must consult with USFWS or NOAA 

Fisheries, as appropriate to ensure that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. For the Proposed Action the lead Federal 

agency is FRA. If a proposed action “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat, the lead agency is 

required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the nature and severity of the expected effect. In response, 

USFWS or NOAA Fisheries issues a biological opinion (BO), with a determination that the action either:

• May jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding) or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification finding), or

• Would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (no Jeopardy finding) or result in adverse 

modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding).

The BO issued by USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service may stipulate discretionary “reasonable and prudent” 

conservation measures. If it is determined the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, 

USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service would issue an incidental take statement to authorize the proposed activity. The 

Incidental Take Statement may include Terms and Conditions which are required actions intended to implement the 

“Reasonable and Prudent” measures under ESA, Section 7.

3.3.1.3 ESA Prohibitions (Section 9)

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of any fish or wildlife species listed under the ESA as endangered. Take, as 

defined by the ESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.” Harm is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat 

modification.” Take of threatened species also is prohibited under Section 9 unless otherwise authorized by Federal 

regulations. Additionally, Section 9 prohibits removing, cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed 

plants on sites under Federal jurisdiction.

3.3.1.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Title 16, USC, Section 703 enacts the provisions of treaties between the U.S. 

and Great Britain (for Canada), the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and Russia and authorizes the 

U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes hunting seasons and 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

capture limits for game species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs. EO 13186 (January 

10, 2001) directs each Federal agency taking actions that have or may have a negative impact on migratory bird 

populations to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would promote the 

conservation of migratory bird populations. Protocols developed under the MOU must include the following agency 

responsibilities:

• Avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting 

agency actions

• Restore and enhance migratory bird habitats, as practicable

• Prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as 

practicable.

The EO is designed to assist Federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA, and does not constitute a legal 

authorization to “take” migratory birds.

3.3.1.5 Clean Water Act

The Federal CWA was enacted as an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined 

the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to Waters of the United States (WoUS). The CWA now serves 

as the primary Federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including wetlands.

3.3.1.6 Permits for Fill Placement in Wetlands and other Waters of the United 

States (Section 404)

Under the CWA Section 404, the USACE and the EPA regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials into WoUS.

WoUS refers to oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands, including any or all of the following:

• Areas within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a stream, including non-perennial streams with a defined 

bed and bank, and any stream channel that conveys natural runoff, even if it has been realigned.

• Seasonal and perennial wetlands, including coastal wetlands. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes 

as areas “inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, 

and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions.”

Project sponsors must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into WoUS, including 

wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity.

WoUS in the project area are under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles District of the USACE. Compliance with CWA 

Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and regulations. The USACE cannot issue an 

individual permit or verify the use of a general permit until the requirements of NEPA, ESA, and the NHPA have been 

met. Additionally, the USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a water quality certification, or waiver of certification, 

has been issued pursuant to CWA Section 401. Section 404 permits may be issued only for the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative. That is, authorization of a proposed discharge is prohibited if there is a practicable 

alternative that would have less adverse impacts and lacks other significant adverse consequences. Refer to Section 

3.14, Water Quality and Water Resources, for further discussion of stormwater discharge and water quality certification 

processes (e.g. Section 401 certification) under the CWA.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.3.1.7 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-666c) requires consultation with USFWS and the State fish and 

wildlife agencies where the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed, authorized, permitted, or licensed 

to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified under a federal permit or license. Consultation is 

undertaken for the purpose of preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources. Consultation is not necessary where 

the maximum surface area of water impoundment is less than 10 acres.

3.3.1.8 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species

EO 13112, Invasive Species, directs all federal agencies to prevent and control introductions of invasive nonnative 

species, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts caused by invasive species infestations. 

It requires the NEPA process include determinations of the likelihood of introducing or spreading invasive species, and 

a description of measures being taken to minimize their potential harm.

3.3.1.9 Coastal Zone Management Act 

The U.S. Congress recognized the importance of meeting the challenge of continued growth in the coastal zone by 

passing the CZMA in 1972. This act provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great 

Lakes. The goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the 

nation’s coastal zone.” Section 307 of the CZMA, called the “federal consistency” provision, gives states a strong voice 

in federal agency decision making, which they otherwise would not have, for activities that may affect a state’s coastal 

uses or resources. Generally, federal consistency requires that federal actions, within and outside the coastal zone, 

which have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use (land or water) or natural resource of the coastal zone 

be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's federally approved coastal management program. The federal 

government certified the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) in 1977. The enforceable policies of that 

document are Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. All federal actions are reviewed for consistency with 

these policies.

3.3.2 Affected Environment

3.3.2.1 Physical Setting

The Biological Study Area (BSA) lies within the Buena Vista Hydrologic Area (HA) (Basin No. 4.20) of the greater 

Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (HU) (Basin No. 4.00). Within the northern portion of the site, the railroad is elevated from the 

surrounding lands while the railroad within the southern portion of the site is generally at ground level. The approximate 

elevation is 6 to 44 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Buena Vista watershed is the fourth-largest system within 

the Carlsbad HU and extends inland from the coast approximately 10.6 miles. The watershed totals 14,437 acres in 

area and approximately 80% of the watershed is developed. The Buena Vista watershed is long and relatively narrow 

in shape and divided into two basins, Vista and El Salto. The project site is located within the lower El Salto basin 

(Basin No. 4.21). 

Buena Vista Creek is the main drainage system within the watershed. The creek originates on the western slopes of 

the San Marcos Mountains and discharges into the Pacific Ocean via Buena Vista Lagoon. The lagoon was originally 

a tidal system; however, during most summers the lagoon was closed to the sea, and in 1940, a weir was constructed 

across the mouth of the lagoon, eliminating normal tidal flow. As a result of the weir and other factors, Buena Vista 

Lagoon primarily functions as a freshwater lake with a fringing freshwater marsh. Tidal influence is limited seasonally 

to large winter storm events when waves surge over the weir. The total surface area of the lagoon is approximately 200 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

acres and characterized by four basins; from east to west, they are East Basin [located east of I-5], Central Basin 

(bound to the east by I-5 and Coast Highway to the west), Railroad Basin (bound to the east by Coast Highway and 

NCTD ROW to the west), and Weir Basin (basin bound to the east by NCTD ROW and the Pacific Ocean to the west).

The Weir and Railroad Basins are cumulatively referred to as the West Basin; the project site spans the West Basin.

The Weir Basin is almost devoid of native vegetation; the exception to this is along the railroad berm, north of the 

trestle, and along the St. Malo (residential area to the west of the ROW, within the northwestern corner of the lagoon) 

shoreline where only a few plants exist. An artificial earth berm has also been built around the St. Malo properties to 

control flooding, and ornamental vegetation has been planted next to the lagoon throughout these residences. The 

Railroad Basin is dominated by freshwater marsh species. The lagoon in the general vicinity of the project site is 

relatively shallow, with the western side being slightly deeper than the east at an approximate depth of three and a half 

feet from the surface water elevation to the bed of the lagoon and another one and a half foot of depth from the bed of 

the lagoon to the bottom of the soft mud layer.

Buena Vista Creek does have floodplains and floodways as designated by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) associated with it. The West Basin is predominately identified as a 100-year floodplain, extending 

beyond the limits of the open water associated with the lagoon to the toe of the railroad slope.

Buena Vista Creek and Buena Vista Lagoon are both identified under Section 303(d) of the CWA as impaired 

waterbodies. The lagoon is specifically listed as an impaired waterbody for nutrients and sedimentation/siltation, while 

the creek is listed as impaired for sediment toxicity and selenium (USEPA, 2010).

The project area lies entirely within the California Coastal Zone boundary. In addition, the lagoon and upland habitat 

within the southwestern portion of the project area are designated as conserved lands by the California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Buena Vista Lagoon is a permanent water body, fed by Buena Vista Creek, also a perennial system. The lagoon is 

completely surrounded by urban land uses in which dense development and fringing non-native plant communities 

define both the northern and southern boundaries. The lagoon remains minimally linked to riparian wetland habitats 

along Buena Vista Creek upstream and beach environments at the mouth. Although small, remnant stands of native 

vegetation persist along steeper bluff slopes within the urban areas to the south; these upland habitat fragments are 

generally separated from the lagoon itself and contribute little if any benefit to the lagoon communities.

3.3.2.2 Vegetation Types/Flora

Twelve vegetation types were identified within the BSA during the biological surveys, as shown in Table 3.3-1 below.

A complete list of all floral species observed within the BSA during biological surveys, as well as detailed descriptions 

of vegetation types can be found in Appendix C of this EA. Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of vegetation types within 

the BSA.

3.3.2.3 Wildlife Habitats/Fauna

The BSA is limited in its capacity to provide high value habitat for wildlife species due to the regular maintenance of the 

railroad tracks and adjacent dense urban development. However, Buena Vista Lagoon does provide habitat for a variety 

of wildlife species, including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals that are dependent on 

biological elements such as habitat for food, shelter, and breeding situated in a surrounding urban setting. A complete 

list of all fauna species observed within the BSA during biological surveys, as well as detailed descriptions of wildlife 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

habitats and fauna can be found in Appendix C of this EA. There is no critical habitat and/or listed species breeding 

habitat within the BSA.

Table 3.3-1

Vegetation Types within the Biological Study Area

Vegetation Type Holland/Oberbauer Code Existing Acreage

Open water 64100 10.461

Southern willow scrub 63320 0.14

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 52410 6.82

Disturbed coastal and valley freshwater marsh 52410 0.17

Diegan coastal sage scrub 32500 0.73

Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub 32500 0.12

Maritime succulent scrub 32400 0.20

Non-native grassland 42200 3.24

Eucalyptus woodland 79100 1.55

Non-native vegetation 11000 10.85

Disturbed habitat 11300 11.69

Urban/developed 12000 101.172

Total: 147.14

Notes: 1 The total acreage of open water is inclusive of the open water under the bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon. This amounts to 0.12 acres. 2 The total acreage of urban developed is less than the amount of open water under the bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon. This amounts to 

0.12 acres.

Source: Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2016.

3.3.2.4 Federally Listed Species

One federally listed endangered species, the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) was observed within the 

BSA during the biological surveys. Small numbers of California least tern were observed foraging over/within the open 

water associated with Buena Vista Lagoon during biological surveys. This species is a summer visitor to coastal San 

Diego County and nests on sandy ocean beaches, drying margins of lagoons, mudflats, and salt pond levees. They 

generally arrive mid-April and leave by the end of August. Within the BSA, there are no potential nesting sites for this 

species due to lack of suitable habitat. Nearby nesting locations include Batiquitos Lagoon (approximately 6.4 miles to 

the south of the study area) and the Santa Margarita River on Camp Pendleton (approximately 5.5 miles to the north 

of the study area).

3.3.2.5 Occurrence Potential of Federally Listed Species

A. Species Previously Identified as Breeding within the BSA

The light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), a federally listed endangered species, is known to have 

occurred within the BSA but was not detected during the biological surveys. Historically, the species was found in the 

coastal tidal basins in Southern California but has adapted to freshwater or brackish coastal water basins. The fresh to 

brackish water basins at Buena Vista Lagoon have a history of supporting the light-footed clapper rail. Light-footed 

clapper rails have historically been known to occupy marsh habitat within the East and Central Basins of the Lagoon, 

but individuals have also been observed in all basins. Although no light-footed clapper rails were detected within the 

BSA during the 2012 or 2013 surveys, this species has a history of occurring within the Railroad and Weir Basins of 

Buena Vista Lagoon in and adjacent to the BSA within the marsh habits represented in the BSA. As recently as 2012, 

four pairs of light-footed clapper rails were detected in the Western Basin of Buena Vista Lagoon. The light-footed 

clapper rail is therefore expected to have a high potential to nest within the BSA as well as within the NCTD ROW.

Peak nesting season occurs in April and May (but can extend from March through July).
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

B. Species Potentially Present within the BSA

Below is a list of species that were not detected within the BSA during the biological surveys but have a potential to 

occur onsite.

Fairy Shrimp

In Coastal San Diego County, three species of fairy shrimp (Branchiopods class) are present, two of which are endemic, 

the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni). The 

third species, versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) is a habitat generalist common throughout western North 

America. Fairy shrimp have the potential to live in vernal and/or ephemeral pools/swales, which form in shallow 

depressions underlain by a substrate of hardpan, clay, or basalt near the surface that restricts the percolation of water.

These pools can occur singularly but more typically occur in pool/swale complexes due to the local hydrology, geology, 

and topography. San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp generally require all of the following pool characteristics: shallow 

to moderate pool depths (2 to 12 inches) that hold water for sufficient lengths of time (7 to 60 days) in flat to gently 

sloping topography and any soil type with a clay component and/or an impermeable surface or substrate layer.

Federally listed endangered San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp have the potential to occur within low-lying areas, 

parallel to the railroad tracks, north of the lagoon. Specifically, surface soil cracking was detected at the northern most 

portion of the alignment (just south of Cassidy Street), on both the west and east sides of the track as well as at Buena 

Vista Lagoon on a dirt path leading to the bridge. Surface soil cracking is an indicator of recent inundation in concave 

landscape positions where water has ponded. The Proposed Action is located approximately five miles north of the 

Carlsbad Poinsettia Station where San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp are known to occur.

Dry and wet season protocol sampling occurred on the project site where federally listed San Diego and Riverside fairy 

shrimp were determined to have the potential to occur. Three distinct locations were sampled, as shown on Figure 3.3-

1. The sample sites were located within low-lying areas where surface soil cracking was evident during dry season 

surveys. All sites are parallel to the existing railroad track and north of Buena Vista Lagoon. From north to south the 

sample locations are described as follows:

1. A swale located west of the railroad tracks just south of Cassidy Street;

2. Undeveloped land (also referred to as urban basin) located east of the railroad tracks just south of Cassidy 

Street; and

3. An access path pool located east of the railroad tracks within an existing dirt access road leading to the bridge 

over Buena Vista Lagoon.

No indicator plant species for vernal pools and no fairy shrimp were detected onsite during the wet season protocol 

sampling. In addition, no indicator plant species for vernal pools were detected onsite during the dry season protocol 

sampling or during the general biological survey in July 2013 and no fairy shrimp were detected onsite during the dry 

season protocol sampling. Only versatile fairy shrimp were collected on the project site during wet season sampling. 

Versatile fairy shrimp are commonly found throughout San Diego County and do not have a special status designation.
SOURCE: Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

 Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Wet Season Protocol Sample Areas 3.3-1

FIGURE

3.3-7
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

California Gnatcatcher

The federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (CAGN) is a year-round 

resident in coastal San Diego County areas generally below 1,500 feet in elevation. CAGN prefer coastal sage scrub 

habitat that is dominated by California sagebrush and flat-top buckwheat. The breeding season generally extends from 

February through August with the peak of nesting activities occurring from mid-March through mid-May. A moderate 

size isolated patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub is present within the BSA, just south of the lagoon. The vegetation 

community is dominated by California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat, and California encelia, which are all plant species 

found in typical breeding and foraging habitat of the coastal CAGN. However, there are no historical records for the 

coastal CAGN within the BSA, nor did M&A biologists detect any coastal CAGN during focused avian surveys 

performed in 2012 or biological surveys performed in 2013. In addition, protocol surveys conducted in 2013 as part of 

the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project did not indicate the presence of any coastal CAGN. Furthermore, per 

the Buena Vista Lagoon Land Management Plan Elements, the coastal CAGN is an infrequent winter visitor to the 

lagoon, likely due to a lack of suitable breeding habitat. Overall, due to the lack of historical and recent observations of 

CAGN within the BSA and the relatively small and isolated patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub, the potential for nesting 

by this species within the BSA is low.

3.3.2.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

Within the BSA, Buena Vista Lagoon is identified as jurisdictional, traditional navigable waters of the WoUS based on 

the presence of OHWM indicators. As previously mentioned, the lagoon was originally a tidal system until a weir was 

constructed across the mouth of the lagoon in 1940, which eliminated the natural tidal flow. Now, marine influence is 

limited seasonally to large winter storm events when waves surge over the weir and through groundwater influence 

with saline water penetration through the alluvial sediments. The lagoon is a permanent waterbody, and as such, is 

defined as a permanent water.

There are three waterways that run parallel to the railroad tracks. All of these waterways drain into Buena Vista Lagoon; 

however, surface OHWM indicators are generally not present between the terminus of the drainage patterns and the 

lagoon. One ephemeral waterway is located in the northern portion of the BSA (west side of the railroad; Waterway #1) 

and generally receives water runoff only after rain events. This waterway is defined as a non-relatively permanent water 

(non-RPW). The other two ephemeral waterways (Waterway #2 and #3) convey urban runoff in addition to water runoff 

after rain events. These waterways have also been defined as non-RPW.

The open water associated with the lagoon (inclusive of the water under the railroad tracks) is classified as non-wetland 

WoUS due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation. The marsh communities within the lagoon are classified as a wetland 

based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. The USACE (inclusive of waters of the 

state) jurisdictional boundaries were delineated according to the identified OHWM. Where hydrophytic vegetation 

extended beyond OHWM indicators, hydric soils and hydrologic indicators were absent and hydrophytic vegetation 

would only be considered wetlands under the California Coastal Act (CCA). The ephemeral waters noted above have 

been classified as non-wetland WoUS due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation (as well as lack of hydric soils), but 

evident drainage patterns. Small segments of the drainages are also dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Detailed 

information regarding jurisdictional wetlands and other WoUS assessed for this study can be found in Appendix C of 

this EA.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.3-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.3.2.7 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites

The railroad ROW is primarily bound by urban development, which typically does not provide suitable shelter for wildlife 

species. The ROW could potentially be used for movement between areas by urban tolerant species but is not expected 

to serve as a nursery site. Buena Vista Lagoon is completely surrounded by urban land uses in which dense 

development and fringing non-native plant communities define both the northern and southern boundaries. As a result, 

the lagoon is primarily isolated from the upstream riparian wetland habitats of Buena Vista Creek and the beach 

environments at the mouth. As it pertains to avian species, the lagoon primarily serves as a stopover for migratory 

species as they transit between areas along the Pacific Flyway. However, the lagoon also supports year-round resident 

avifauna as well. The lagoon and vegetation adjacent to the lagoon could serve as a nursery site for wildlife.

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences

3.3.3.1 Proposed Action

A. Vegetation Communities

Direct Impacts

Construction of the Proposed Action would primarily result in direct, permanent impacts to habitat immediately adjacent 

to the existing tracks, which is classified as either non-native vegetation, urban/developed, or disturbed habitat. The 

exception to this is within the immediate vicinity of the lagoon where creation of a second track (inclusive of removal of 

the existing bridge and construction of a new bridge) would result in permanent impacts to open water and coastal and 

valley freshwater marsh, predominantly located on the east side of the existing tracks. In addition, construction of the 

second track south of the lagoon would permanently impact thin portions of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and 

eucalyptus woodland.

Temporary impacts to habitat would result from use of temporary access paths, staging areas, and areas necessary to 

construct the bridge over the lagoon. North of the lagoon, the communities impacted as a result of temporary impacts 

are disturbed habitat, non-native grassland, eucalyptus woodland, non-native vegetation, and a small patch of disturbed 

Diegan coastal sage scrub. Construction of the second track over the lagoon would require additional areas/platforms 

that would temporarily result in impacts to open water and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. South of the lagoon, 

the communities temporarily impacted would be urban/developed, disturbed habitat, and non-native vegetation.

Impacts to vegetation communities resulting from the Proposed Action are provided in Table 3.3-2 and shown on Figure 

3.3-2 below.

Direct impacts to open water and coastal and valley freshwater marsh, regardless of classification as permanent or 

temporary would be adverse. Direct impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland 

regardless of classification as permanent or temporary would be adverse since these vegetation communities are 

regionally considered to be sensitive habitat types. Impacts to the following upland communities, regardless of 

classification as permanent or temporary, would not be considered adverse since these habitats are not regionally 

considered to have high conservation value: non-native vegetation, eucalyptus woodland, disturbed habitat, and 

urban/developed land.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.3-2

Impacts to Vegetation Communities within the Biological Study Area

Vegetation Type

Project Impacts (acreage)

Mitigation 

Ratio1

Required Project Mitigation (acreage)

Permanent Impacts Temporary 

Impacts

Permanent Temporary Grand 

Total

Total 

Mitigation

Wetland 

Associated

(Federal 

requirement for 

no net loss)

Any 

combination of 

Creation/ 

Restoration/ 

Enhancement/ 

Mitigation Bank

Restoration

Open water 0.07 0.20 0.27 3:1 0.21 0.07 0.18 0.20

Southern willow scrub 0.00 0.00 0.00 3:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 1.01 0.13 1.14 3:1 3.03 1.01 2.02 0.13

Disturbed coastal and valley freshwater marsh 0.05 0.00 0.05 2:1 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00

Wetland Associated Subtotal: 1.13 0.33 1.46 3.34 1.13 2.21 0.33

Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.00 0.00 0.00 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Disturbed Diego coastal sage scrub <0.01 0.00 <0.01 1:1 0.004 0.00 0.004 0.00

Maritime succulent scrub 0.00 0.00 0.00 3:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Non-native grassland 0.03 2.44 2.47 0.5:1 0.015 0.00 0.015 2.44

Higher Value Uplands Subtotal: 0.03 2.44 2.47 0.019 0.00 0.019 2.44

Non-native vegetation 1.28 0.40 1.68 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eucalyptus woodland 0.01 0.18 0.19 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Disturbed habitat 3.61 1.38 4.99 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Urban/developed land 8.08 0.45 8.53 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lower Value Uplands Subtotal: 12.98 2.41 15.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total2: 14.14 5.18 19.32 3.36 1.13 2.23 2.77

Notes: 1 Mitigation ratio only applicable to permanent impacts as temporarily impacted areas would be restored in place at a 1:1 ratio. If restoration in place were not feasible, temporary impacts would be 

mitigated at the same ratio as permanent impacts. 2 Totals are calculated in MS Excel and, in several instances, take into account impacts from project elements that occur in the thousandths. This may result in rounding that could cumulatively affect 

the manual summation of acreages.

Source: Merkel and Associates, 2016.
SOURCE: Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Biological Impacts 3.3-2

FIGURE

3.3-11
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

B. Federally Listed Species

Direct Impacts

Flora Present

The Proposed Action would not result in impacts to any federally listed species of flora, as none are present within the 

BSA.

Flora Potentially Present

There are no federally listed species of flora that were determined to have a low, moderate or high potential to occur 

within the BSA.

Fauna Present

Light-Footed Clapper Rail. The light-footed clapper rail is known to historically occupy the coastal and valley 

freshwater marsh within the BSA and at least three territories have historically been documented within and or 

immediately adjacent to the project footprint. While the most recent surveys have not detected presence of rails, it is 

anticipated that they remain in and adjacent to the BSA. Construction of the Proposed Action would likely result in take 

of the light-footed clapper rail as a result of permanent and temporary loss of habitat, elevated noise levels during 

construction and temporary night lighting during construction. In the event construction were to commence within the 

marsh during the breeding season there would be a high risk of a direct loss of rails through nest abandonment or nest 

destruction, which, as previously mentioned, would result in take of a federally listed species as it is defined under 

Section 9 of the ESA. Take of a federally listed species would be considered an adverse impact. However, consultation 

between the FRA or USACE and the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA would be required, which would identify 

measures to minimize adverse effects to federally listed species. Section 7 consultation is underway.

Fauna Potentially Present

Fairy Shrimp. Federally listed endangered San Diego and Riverside fairy shrimp could potentially be present within 

three distinct low-lying areas, parallel to the railroad tracks. However, as discussed above, no federally listed fairy 

shrimp were detected on the project site during the protocol surveys. Versatile fairy shrimp, both male and female, were 

found in two of the three sampling locations, including the swale and the access path pool. However, versatile fairy 

shrimp are commonly found throughout San Diego County and do not have a special status designation. No other 

pertinent observations pertaining to federally listed fairy shrimp were noted during the survey efforts. As such, the 

Proposed Action would not result in any adverse impacts to federally listed fairy shrimp.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher. There is a low potential for federally listed threatened coastal CAGN to occupy the 

isolated patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub south of the lagoon. Despite the presence of disturbed Diegan coastal 

sage scrub immediately west of the suitable habitat, the disturbed community is sparsely vegetated and is separated 

from the adjacent suitable Diegan coastal sage scrub by an approximate six-foot high chain-link fence. As such, if the 

coastal CAGN were present onsite, it is expected that it would be limited to the area of undisturbed Diegan coastal 

sage scrub only. In the instance that coastal CAGN were present within the Diegan coastal sage scrub, temporary 

elevated noise levels during construction could potentially affect the species. However, monitoring studies suggest that 

coastal CAGN may be tolerant of adjacent construction activities and high ambient noise levels. Based on the low 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-13 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

potential for presence and distance to potentially suitable habitat from the project footprint (approximately 68 feet), 

elevated noise levels from construction would not be expected to adversely affect CAGN individuals by disrupting 

normal behavioral patterns including, but not limited to breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Indirect Impacts

Fauna Present

Light-Footed Clapper Rail. Indirect impacts to the federally listed light-footed clapper rail are expected as a result of 

increasing noise generated through increased train trips accommodated by a second track. Noise generated from an 

increase in train trips resulting from a second track are expected to increase gradually over time. Based on estimated 

projections of future train levels of service, on average the project would accommodate an increase in train frequency 

full capacity. The increased level of service would also correlate with an increase in the number of occurrences when 

two trains simultaneously pass one another, which is expected to result in a short period of distinctly elevated noise.

As such, the increased frequency of train services, as well as the increased number of instances when two trains 

simultaneously pass one another, would result in increased overall noise level generation.

The greatest potential noise impact on clapper rails would be a reduced effectiveness of communication between 

individuals in close proximity to the tracks, particularly prior to and during the breeding season. As a result, the noise 

of passing trains would tend to shorten the period of time during which communications could effectively occur. 

However, due to the intermittent nature of train noise, only brief periods of communication disturbances would occur, 

resulting in either periods of ineffective communication or behavioral changes by individual clapper rails. The brief 

punctuated disruptions in communication would not be expected to adversely disrupt normal behavioral patterns 

including, but not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. In addition, due to the length of time over which noise would 

increase, clapper rails are expected to become acclimated to the increased ambient noise conditions, on a 

multigenerational basis, such that the operation of the second track would not be expected to create noise levels that 

would be distinct from the shifting ambient baseline.

California Least Tern. The California least tern is an opportunistic forager and was observed foraging over/within the 

lagoon during the biological surveys. Although there are no potential nesting sites within the BSA and no active nesting 

in the lagoon, indirect impacts could occur to this species from alteration of foraging habitat as a result of elevated 

turbidity during construction. In addition, there would be a permanent reduction in available open water surface within 

which foraging may occur as a result of the addition of the second track. However, the permanent loss of open water 

foraging habitat would be considered minimal, with only an approximate total loss of 0.07 acres (0.05% of the lagoon).

As a result, it is expected that the California least tern would utilize other portions of Buena Vista Lagoon if local foraging 

habitat losses would occur. If present during construction, the temporary construction activities are expected to reduce 

local foraging area. While the permanent footprint of the project constitutes a negligible portion of the total open water 

in the lagoon, inadequate control of turbidity during construction could result in an adverse impact to temporarily 

affected foraging areas. However, these impacts may be reduced by controlling turbidity generation to a small footprint 

area around the construction zone during the summer least tern breeding season. In addition, consultation between 

the FRA and the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA would be required, which would identify mitigation measures to 

reduce impacts to federally listed species. 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-14 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

C. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

Direct Impacts

Construction of the Proposed Action within the vicinity of Buena Vista Lagoon would result in direct, permanent impacts 

to open water (0.07 acre) and coastal valley freshwater marsh (0.68 acre) predominantly located on the east side of 

the existing tracks. Permanent impacts to ephemeral waterways (i.e., Waterway #3 and a low-lying depression along 

a dirt access path leading to the lagoon bridge) would also result from construction of the Proposed Action.

Temporary impacts to habitat would result from use of temporary access paths, staging areas, and areas necessary to 

construct the bridge over the lagoon. Construction of the second track over the lagoon would require additional 

areas/platforms that would temporarily result in impacts to open water and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. Direct 

temporary impacts would also occur to ephemeral waterways (Waterway #2).

Impacts to federal waters resulting from the Proposed Action are provided in Table 3.3-3 below. All direct impacts to 

federal waters, regardless of classification as permanent or long-term temporary would be adverse and would require 

mitigation to reduce impacts and achieve the federal requirement for no net loss of biological functions and values.

Impacts to federal waters would require the following permits by regulatory federal and state agencies:

1. USACE, CWA Section 404 permit for placement of dredged or fill material within WoUS;

2. RWQCB, CWA Section 401 state water quality certification/waiver for an action that may result in degradation 

of waters of the State; and

3. CCC, CZMA Consistency Determination.

Permitting initiation for the Proposed Action has not yet occurred.

Indirect Impacts

Construction of the Proposed Action would be expected to result in indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources within 

the BSA, most notably from the effects of disturbance and/or clearing of resources within the project footprint that could 

result in conditions suitable for intrusion of non-native, weedy species and increased erosion or sedimentation within 

Buena Vista Lagoon. These potential indirect impacts would be considered adverse.

D. Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites

Direct Impacts

Construction of the Proposed Action primarily would result in direct, permanent impacts to habitat immediately adjacent 

to the existing railroad tracks, which is classified as either non-native vegetation, urban/developed, or 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-15 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.3-3

Impacts to Federal Waters within the Biological Study Area

Notes: 1 Mitigation ratio only applicable to permanent impacts as temporarily impacted areas would be restored in place at a 1:1 ratio. If restoration of temporary impacts were not feasible, temporary impacts 

would be mitigated at the same ratio as permanent impacts. 2 Totals are calculated in MS Excel and, in several instances, take into account impacts from project elements that occur in the thousandths. This may result in rounding that could cumulatively affect 

the manual summation of acreages.

Source: Merkel and Associates, 2016.

Vegetation Type (Jurisdiction)

Project Impacts (acreage)

Mitigation 

Ratio1

Required Project Mitigation (acreage)

Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts

Permanent Temporary Grand 

Total

Total 

Mitigation

Wetland 

Associated

(Federal 

requirement for 

no net loss)

Any combination 

of Creation/ 

Restoration/ 

Enhancement/ 

Mitigation Bank

Restoration

Open water (USACE, RWQCB, CCC) 0.07 0.20 0.27 3:1 0.21 0.07 0.14 0.20

Southern willow scrub (USACE, RWQCB, 

CCC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 3:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 

(USACE, RWQCB, CCC) 0.68 0.13 0.81 3:1 2.04 0.68 1.36 0.13

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh (CCC 

only) 0.33 0.00 0.33 3:1 0.99 0.33 0.66 0.00

Disturbed coastal and valley freshwater 

marsh (CCC only) 0.05 0.00 0.05 2:1 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00

Wetland Associated Subtotal: 1.13 0.33 1.46 3.34 1.13 2.21 0.33

Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. 0.10 0.03 0.13 1:1 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.03

Waters Subtotal: 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.03

Total2: 1.23 0.36 1.59 3.44 1.23 2.21 0.36
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-16 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

disturbed habitat. It is expected that wildlife movement by mammals within the project area principally would be focused 

on the vicinity of Buena Vista Lagoon. Due to dense urban development north and south of the lagoon and the limited 

and constraining habitat along the beachfront, it is expected that the majority of wildlife movement would be limited to 

daily home range movements of urban tolerant species such as raccoon, Virginia opossum, and occasional gray fox.

There is a low potential for wildlife to travel along the tracks from Loma Alta Creek to the north and/or Agua Hedionda 

Lagoon to the south. Due to the already limited corridors for wildlife within the project site and the presence of the 

existing railroad corridor, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in adverse changes to present wildlife movement 

patterns or intensity.

The project footprint does not include any identified nursery sites. The Proposed Action could result in direct permanent 

and temporary impacts to habitat of marsh nesting birds. These impacts are not considered to be impacts to nursery 

sites, due to the absence of colonial nesting areas, rookeries, or other established nursery sites. Potential impacts to 

individually nesting birds are addressed as habitat impacts discussed above, or in the case of listed species, are 

discussed separately above (sub-section B. Federal Listed Species). There are no anticipated adverse impacts to 

nursery sites as a result of the Proposed Action.

Indirect Impacts

There are no indirect impacts to wildlife movement/corridors or nursery sites.

E. Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The BSA has the potential to be utilized by regionally common migratory birds and raptors that are not federally listed 

species, but are protected under the Federal MBTA. Under the MBTA, it is unlawful, except as permitted by the USFWS, 

to “take, possess, transport, sell, purchase, barter, import, or export all species of birds protected by the MBTA, as well 

as their feathers, parts, nests, or eggs. Take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12).” It is important to note that “take” 

as defined under the federal MBTA is not synonymous with “take” as it is defined under the ESA. Since avian species 

could potentially nest in the onsite habitats, the Proposed Action could result in adverse impacts to active bird and/or 

raptor nests (if present at time of construction) under the federal MBTA.

3.3.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be built and impacts to vegetation communities, 

federally listed species, and jurisdictional wetlands and WoUS, and avian species protected under the MBTA would not 

occur. Railroad activity through Buena Vista Lagoon and the BSA would increase to approximately 67 trains per day 

on the current single track, which is considered to be the maximum capacity of the NCTD without the proposed doubletrack project. Freight train trips would increase from 3-4 trips per day (current) to approximately 8-10 trips per day in 

San Diego County by 2030/2040. This would increase the ambient noise levels in the lagoon and disturb migratory 

birds, including the endangered clapper rail. However, as discussed in Section 3.3.3.1(B) above, indirect impacts to 

clapper rails due to the increased ambient noise levels associated with more frequent freight train trips would not be 

significant, because it would only be a punctuated disruption in communication that would last for brief moments, and 

would not be expected to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns including but not limited to breeding, feeding 

or sheltering. As such, no impact to biological resources would occur.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-17 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

It is a requirement of the USFWS and the USACE that impacts be avoided to the extent practicable. Impacts that cannot 

be avoided are to be minimized. Impacts that remain after avoidance and minimization are to be mitigated.

3.3.4.1 Proposed Action

A. Vegetation Communities

Direct Impacts

The following avoidance and minimization measures would be required to reduce adverse effects to vegetation 

communities to a negligible level:

BR-1 SANDAG would appoint a monitoring biologist to be onsite during the initial clearing and grubbing of habitat 

to ensure compliance with all biological avoidance and minimization measures. The biologist would be 

knowledgeable of upland and wetland biology and ecology. The biologist would perform the following duties:

• Train all contractors and construction personnel on the biological resources associated with this 

project and ensure that training is implemented by construction personnel. At a minimum, training 

would include: a) the purpose for resource protection; b) the conservation measures that would be 

implemented during project construction, including strictly limiting activities, vehicles, equipment, and 

construction materials to the fenced project footprint to avoid sensitive resource areas in the field 

(i.e., avoided areas delineated on maps or on the project site by fencing); c) environmentally 

responsible construction practices; and d) the protocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at any time 

during the construction process.

• Halt work, if necessary, and confer with FRA to report any violation within 24 hours of discovery of 

its occurrence.

BR-2 Prior to and during construction activities, the Contractor would implement and maintain Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) throughout the entire project footprint consistent with standard BMPs. This includes 

implementation and maintenance of silt fencing or other sediment trapping devices (on land and within the 

lagoon) in order to prevent run-off from entering the nearby water systems during construction activities as 

well as incorporation of adequate requirements for dust, drainage, and erosion control into project plans and 

grading conditions.

BR-3 Prior to construction activities, a hazardous spill response plan would be developed and implemented by the 

Contractor. At a minimum, for all construction within 100 feet of the lagoon, an adequately sized petroleum 

spill response kit would be onsite and available for deployment to avoid, or contain accidental discharges to

the lagoon.

BR-4 Prior to construction activities, temporary environmental fencing would be placed along the perimeter of the 

project footprint (as applicable). The fencing would be installed and maintained by the Contractor under 

direction of the project biologist and construction manager. Fencing would be implemented and maintained in 

a manner that does not interfere with wildlife movement or flows along the creek systems.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-18 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

BR-5 Prior to construction activities, a Revegetation Plan for erosion control purposes would be required and 

implemented by the Contractor to prevent erosion over those areas that would not be permanently converted 

to urban use and/or restored in place. The plan would be consistent with similar SANDAG plans and include 

details regarding installation, maintenance and monitoring, success criteria, and remedial measures if 

warranted. The planting palette would consist of native species similar to those species currently onsite as 

directed by the project biologist. The planting palette would not include those species listed by the California 

Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) in the California Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2007). All native seed and 

plant stock would be from seed and propagules collected from the project footprint or within a five-mile radius 

of the work area to the extent practicable. Seed sources outside of the five-mile radius would be approved by 

the project biologist. Maintenance and monitoring would be required for a minimum of 90 days and for 

compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 

BR-6 The following would be made a part of project requirements for the Contractor: a) employees should strictly 

limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the fenced project footprint; b) the 

project site would be kept as clean of debris as possible (all food related trash items should be enclosed in 

sealed containers and regularly removed from the site); c) disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, 

brush or other debris would not be allowed in adjacent waters or wetlands; and d) all equipment maintenance, 

staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant or any other such activities would occur in designated staging 

areas outside of waters or wetlands within the fenced project impact limits. Fueling of equipment would take 

place within existing paved/urban areas greater than 100 feet from waters or wetlands. Contractor equipment 

would be checked for leaks each morning and mid-day prior to operation and would be repaired as necessary 

or removed from the site.

The following mitigation measure would be required to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts (lost values and 

functions).

BR-7 Mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland 

would be implemented by the SANDAG through a combination of the following: creation/restoration or 

creation/restoration combined with enhancement, and/or preservation. If offsite mitigation is required, it is 

recommended that the final selected mitigation location(s) be located within the Buena Vista Lagoon 

environment. If mitigation consists of creation, restoration, or enhancement preparation of a Mitigation 

Maintenance and Monitoring Plan would be required. Maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area would

be conducted for a minimum five-year period or until the final success criteria is achieved. The plan would

include, but not be limited to, the following elements: 1) project information, 2) description and goals of the 

compensatory mitigation, 3) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation (e.g., site preparation, 

planting specifications, and planting plan), 4) maintenance activities during the monitoring period, 5) 

monitoring plan (e.g., success criteria, monitoring schedule, performance standards for success criteria, and 

annual reports), 6) completion of compensatory mitigation, and 7) contingency measures. General 

requirements of the plan would include the following:

• All native seed and plant stock would be from seed and propagules within a five-mile radius of the 

mitigation site(s) to the extent practicable. Seed sources outside of the five-mile radius would be 

approved by the project biologist. The planting palette would exclude those species listed by Cal-IPC 

in the California Invasive Plant Inventory (2007).
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-19 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

• Supplemental irrigation would be turned off a minimum of two years prior to the 

termination/completion of the monitoring program.

Indirect Impacts

Impacts from potential intrusion of non-native, weedy species and erosion/sedimentation would be considered adverse.

However, implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Action BR-5 listed above, which requires a Revegetation Plan 

for erosion control purposes would reduce potential indirect impacts to vegetation communities to a negligible level.

B. Federally Listed Species

The following avoidance and minimization measures would likely be required to minimize adverse effects to federally 

listed species but may be modified in accordance with Section 7 Consultation Terms and Conditions:

Direct Impacts

Fauna Present

In the event construction were to commence within the marsh during the light-footed clapper rail breeding season there 

would be a high risk of a direct loss of rails through nest abandonment or nest destruction, which would constitute take 

of the species under the ESA. It is anticipated that the following Conservation Measures would be identified during a 

consultation between the FRA and the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA to address potential take of this species:

BR-8 All environmental permits and authorizations for work would be kept onsite and fully reviewed and complied 

with by the Contractor and all subcontractors.

BR-9 No clearing, grubbing of grading of coastal and valley freshwater marsh by the Contractor would occur during 

the light-footed clapper rail breeding season, March 1 to July 31 unless bird monitoring is undertaken by a 

light-footed clapper rail qualified biologist and the monitoring determine there are no active nests within 500 

feet of the work area(s). In the event active nests are within 500 feet of the work areas, work may proceed 

provided noise monitoring demonstrates work does not create noise in excess of 60 A-weighted decibels 

equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) or background whichever is higher, and a light-footed clapper rail qualified 

biologist does not observe any behavioral changes in the event noise levels exceed 60 dBA Leq or background 

whichever is higher. 

BR-10 Noise and lighting barriers would be developed by the Contractor to screen impacts of construction activities 

from the adjacent marshlands if construction work is to be performed during the breeding season.

BR-11 Replacement marsh habitat would be developed by the Contractor to compensate for the unavoidable loss of 

clapper rail habitat.

BR-12 During the period April 15 through September 30, turbidity associated with project construction would be 

contained by the Contractor with the limits of the construction corridor through the use of turbidity curtains 

deployed around the work area to avoid turbidity impacts on the ability of California least tern to forage in 

waters adjacent to the work area.

Indirect Impacts

There are no mitigation measures associated with indirect impacts to federally listed species.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-20 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

C. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

It is anticipated the following mitigation measures will be required to compensate the unavoidable impacts to 

jurisdictional wetlands and other WoUS but may be modified in accordance with Section 404/401 permit conditions:

Direct Impacts

All unavoidable direct impacts to federal waters, regardless of classification as permanent or long-term temporary, 

would be adverse and would require implementation of habitat-based compensatory mitigation. 

BR-13 SANDAG would mitigate in the form of creation/restoration, or creation/restoration combined with 

enhancement, and/or preservation; however, the mitigation cannot result in a net-loss of federal wetland 

habitat or wetland functions and values. Therefore, a minimum 1:1 creation/restoration ratio would be applied 

toward any jurisdictional impacts that result in loss of federal resources. The Proposed Action mitigation is 

subject to review by regulatory agencies. Preparation of a Compensatory Maintenance and Monitoring Plan 

would be required. The plan would be consistent with the USACE’s April 10, 2008 final rule for compensatory 

mitigation for losses of aquatic resources (Federal Register April 10, 2008, V73:70 pg. 19594, USACE 2008c). 

It would include but not be limited to the following elements: 1) project information, 2) description and goals of 

the compensatory mitigation, 3) implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation (e.g., site preparation, 

planting specifications, and planting plan), 4) maintenance activities during the monitoring period, 5) 

monitoring plan (e.g., success criteria, monitoring schedule, performance standards for success criteria, and 

annual reports), 6) completion of compensatory mitigation, and 7) contingency measures. General 

requirements of the plan should include the following:

• All native seed and plant stock would be from seed and propagules within a five-mile radius of the 

mitigation site(s) to the extent practicable. Seed sources outside of the five-mile radius would be 

approved by the project biologist. The planting palette would not utilize those species listed by CalIPC in the California Invasive Plant Inventory (2007).

• Supplemental irrigation would be turned off a minimum of two years prior to the 

termination/completion of the monitoring program.

Indirect Impacts

Potential indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources resulting from construction of the Proposed Action include intrusion 

of non-native, weedy species and increased erosion or sedimentation within Buena Vista Lagoon. These potential 

impacts would be considered adverse. However, implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measure BR-5 listed 

above would reduce these impacts to a negligible level.

D. Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites

The Proposed Action occurs entirely within the existing railroad ROW, and as such is not conducive to use as a wildlife 

corridor. Due to the already limited corridors for wildlife within the project site and the presence of the existing railroad 

corridor, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in adverse changes to present wildlife movement patterns or 

intensity. In addition, the project footprint does not include any identified nursery sites. Therefore, no mitigation 

measures are required.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-21 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

E. MBTA Protected Species

The BSA has the potential to be utilized by regionally common migratory birds and raptors that are not federally listed 

species, but are protected under the Federal MBTA. Since avian species could potentially nest in the onsite habitats, 

the Proposed Action could result in adverse impacts to active bird and/or raptor nests under the Federal MBTA.

Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts to MBTA protected bird 

species to a negligible level:

BR-14 To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, the Contractor would avoid all clearing, grubbing, or grading of 

vegetation that have a potential to support active nests from January 15 through September 15, the “restricted 

work period”. If avoidance of the nesting migratory bird breeding season is not feasible, clearing, grubbing or 

grading of vegetation may occur during the restricted work period if a qualified biologist conducts a focused 

survey for active nests within 7 days prior to work in the area and determines the area to be free of nesting 

birds. If an active bird nest were found, then all construction activities undertaken would comply with regulatory 

requirements of the Federal MBTA including establishing appropriate buffer zones. This would require 

protection of the nest, eggs, chicks, and adults until such time as the nestlings have fully fledged and are no 

longer dependent upon the nest site.

3.3.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures identified above are designed to avoid and/or minimize the permanent and temporary adverse 

impacts to biological resources that may occur from implementation of the Proposed Action. Efforts to restore and 

revegetate permanently and temporarily impacted areas would require periodic human presence in the impacted areas 

for a period of five years or more. The activities would be low impact activities such as walking the areas for monitoring, 

hand weeding, and other maintenance activities using hand tools. A project biologist would oversee all restoration and 

revegetation efforts to ensure no additional impact to biological resources occurs. Impacts would be beneficial and 

negligible.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 3.3-22 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information in the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village DoubleTrack Project Community Impact Assessment (BRG, 2014b) and Environmental Justice Technical Report (BRG, 

2014c), prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. The Community Impact Assessment and Environmental Justice Technical 

Report are provided as Appendices D and E of this document.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

3.4.1.1 Federal Standards

The NEPA of 1969 established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings [42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(2)]. Final decisions 

regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires taking into account adverse 

environmental impacts, such as, destruction or disruption of human-made resources, community cohesion and the 

availability of public facilities and services. 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires each Federal agency to identify and address, as necessary, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations, including Indian tribes.

The presence of “low-income” and “minority” populations is typically determined through evaluation of U.S. Census 

Bureau data. For this analysis, minority populations and low-income populations are any readily identifiable group of 

minority or low-income persons (as further defined in Appendix E of this EA) who live within the study area well as, if 

circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who 

are similarly affected by a proposed U.S. DOT program, policy, or activity.

Executive Order 13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, requires each 

federal agency to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their programs 

and activities by Limited English Proficiency applicants and beneficiaries.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a) establishes the process that the Office of the Secretary and 

each Operating Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation uses to incorporate environmental justice 

principles (as embodied in the EO 12898) into existing programs, policies, and activities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 to 12213] prohibits, under certain circumstances, 

discrimination based on disability.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act [42 U.S.C. Chapter 61] ensures that persons 

displaced because of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds, are treated fairly, consistently, and 

equitably so that such persons would not suffer disproportionate injuries because of projects designed for the benefit 

of the public as a whole.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.4.1.2 State Standards

California Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

3.4.1.3 Local Standards

City of Carlsbad General Plan

As required by State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of Carlsbad has developed a “comprehensive, long-term plan 

for the physical development of the City, and of any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” 

(State of California, 2000).

The City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad, 2013) discusses core values and vision statements related to 

community impacts and environmental justice. For example, the core value ‘Access to recreation and active healthy 

lifestyles’ has a vision statement to ‘Promote active lifestyles and community health by furthering access to trails, parks, 

beaches, and other recreation opportunities.’ One of the goals is ‘A visible trails system to link the three lagoons to the 

coaster stations, to connect environmental resource areas to public transportation.’ The Community Design element is 

the most relevant to this chapter and addresses topics such as the form, character, and quality of development, to 

advance the community’s desire to enhance Carlsbad’s setting and quality of life.

Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual

The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (City of Carlsbad, 2012) is the City of Carlsbad’s official statement 

of design, zoning and land use, and long-range development strategy policy in order to create a strong identity, revitalize 

the area, enhance the economic potential, and establish specific site development standards for the Village.

Additionally, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, together with the implementing ordinances and Manual of 

Policies and Procedures serves as the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Carlsbad Village Area segment of the 

Carlsbad Coastal Zone pursuant to the requirements of the CCA.

City of Oceanside General Plan

For the City of Oceanside, the General Plan is “the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction that will 

be used to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the City” (City of Oceanside, 2002). To address future 

growth and development, the General Plan includes goals, objectives, policies, and plan, which are used to guide future 

land use and development decisions. The Oceanside General Plan contains 10 elements, including a Land Use element 

that ensures projects are consistent with community character.

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The Proposed Action area is located in the northwestern portion of San Diego County, California, within the cities of 

Oceanside and Carlsbad along the Pacific coastline, west of I-5. The Proposed Action would be implemented solely 

within the existing railroad ROW between Cassidy Street in Oceanside and Pine Avenue in Carlsbad, extending through 

downtown Carlsbad and Buena Vista Lagoon. The developed land surrounding the lagoon is comprised of single-family 

and multi-family residential, as well as commercial land uses to the east and west of the lagoon. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

The project study area is located within the boundaries of three census tracts from the 2010 U.S Census: Tracts 179, 

180, and 181. According to the 2010 U.S. Census data for Tracts 179, 180, and 181, 16,328 people live within the 

project study area, with virtually all of these individuals living within the residential areas located more than half-a-mile 

from the project study area. Census Tracts 179 and 180 are located between I-5 and the Pacific Coast in the City of 

Carlsbad, east and west of the railroad tracks, respectively. Census Tract 181 is located in the City of Oceanside, also 

between I-5 and the coast. The tracts are much larger than the area directly affected by project construction, but they 

provide a more focused picture of the area affected by the project than does City and County-level demographics. 

The study area is split into two distinct communities by the Buena Vista Lagoon, which forms the east/west boundary 

between the cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad. Considered to be part of the metropolitan San Diego region, the two 

communities feature a sizeable contingent of commuters who live in the North Coastal portion of San Diego County but 

commute to work in San Diego, approximately 35 miles south. Oceanside and Carlsbad both have their own distinct 

community character, influenced by their immediate proximity to the Pacific Ocean and its associated tourism and 

recreation-based economy. 

Generally speaking, the study area is younger, less affluent, and more urbanized than the populations of Carlsbad and 

Oceanside as a whole. Relative to the rest of the city, lot sizes within the study area are smaller and feature a greater 

proportion of apartment buildings, so consequently the study area is more densely populated and the median household 

size is smaller. Because younger adults move more frequently than do older adults, and therefore younger populations 

tend to be of a more transient nature, there is less community cohesion within the study area compared to the relatively 

more stable owner-occupied single-family neighborhoods found east of I-5. Areas with high proportions of younger 

residents generally demonstrate lower levels of community and civic involvement than do older residents. 

Guidance for environmental justice (CEQ, 1997) defines minority populations as those communities that meet at least 

one of the following criteria:

• The minority population of the affected area is greater than 50 percent of the total population.

• The minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

The minority (non-white, including Hispanic) population within Tract 179 is 43 percent of the total population, which is 

greater than that of the City of Carlsbad (25 percent). The minority population of Tract 180 is 20 percent of the total 

population, which is less than the City of Carlsbad. The minority population of Tract 181 is 30 percent of the total 

population, which is less than the City of Oceanside (52 percent). Therefore, collectively the three Project Census 

Tracts do not have a minority population greater than 50 percent of its total population nor meaningfully greater than 

the respective City populations, they cannot be considered a minority population.

“Low-income” is defined by SANDAG as income that is below the poverty threshold established by the Department of 

Health and Human Services which is on the order of the U.S. Census Bureau thresholds and since U.S. Census data 

is more readily available, that is the threshold used for this analysis. The median household income within Tract 179 is 

$46,408, which is 45 percent less than that of the City of Carlsbad ($84,632) and 26 percent less than that of the County 

of San Diego ($62,771). The percentage of households below the poverty level in Tract 179 is 10 percent. The median 

household income within Tract 180 is $61,190, which is 28 percent less than that of the City of Carlsbad. The 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

percentage of households below the poverty level in Tract 180 is 12 percent. The median household income within 

Tract 181 is $66,277, which is 5 percent greater than the City of Oceanside ($62,841). The percentage of households 

below the poverty level in Tract 181 is 10 percent. Seven (7) percent of the households in the City of Carlsbad are 

below the poverty level. Ten (10) percent of the households in the City of Oceanside are below the poverty level. 

Because Census Tracts 179 and 180 have a greater percentage of their households below the poverty level compared 

to that of the City of Carlsbad as a whole, they are considered to be a low-income population. Census Tract 181 is not 

considered a low-income population because the poverty level within this tract is consistent with the poverty level of 

the entire City of Oceanside.

The Village surrounding the existing train station was developed adjacent to the railroad train station in order to take 

advantage of the railroad’s benefits. The existing railroad operations provide daily pedestrian traffic in the core center 

of the village, and the pedestrian traffic results in revenues for the local businesses. The immediate surrounding local 

businesses include community and tourist-oriented commercial offices, such as yoga studios, doctor’s offices, nonchain restaurants, and souvenir shops. These localized businesses, which provide income for the local owners, are 

partially supported by their proximity to the train station. Although the development immediately adjacent to the train 

station and the railroad ROW consists primarily of local non-chain businesses, the more eastern areas of Carlsbad and 

Oceanside support industrial, manufacturing, and technology-oriented facilities.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences

3.4.3.1 Community Cohesion and Social Community Impacts

Proposed Action

The existing railroad has existed more or less within its current alignment for over 100 years. Existing railroad crossings 

would continue to operate, although one crossing within the station would be closed and replaced with an underpass.

SANDAG is investigating signaling improvements that would reduce crossing delays on Grand Avenue and Carlsbad 

Village Drive associated with southbound Coaster Trains. Presently, the crossing gates drop when the southbound 

Coaster approaches the station. The gates stay down during passenger loading and unloading, and until the train starts 

up and clears Carlsbad Village Drive. Through signaling improvements, this delay should be substantially reduced in 

the future. The Proposed Action would not isolate any portion of a neighborhood or ethnic group, nor would it separate 

residences from community facilities near the project area. No particular social group would especially benefit or be 

harmed by the Proposed Action, as the project would not permanently disrupt existing developments or communities. 

The Proposed Action does not propose any features that would alter the existing demographic or socioeconomic makeup of the surrounding communities. The Proposed Action does not propose any features that would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts, such as air quality, GHG emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, 

parks and recreation, public health and safety, or relocation, on minority and low-income populations with respect to 

human health and the environment. 

The Proposed Action would improve operational reliability and railroad capacity, which would provide regional 

transportation benefits to the surrounding communities. By providing improved reliability to the nearby residential 

communities, the Proposed Action would reduce freeway congestion, GHG emissions, and provide employment 

opportunities within the railroad operations and maintenance field. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would involve the continuation of existing conditions with no additional expansion of 

infrastructure within this segment of the railroad corridor. As such, the No Action Alternative would not result in any 

social impacts to the community. 

3.4.3.2 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice impacts would occur if the following three conditions are met:

• A resource impact is identified in this EA, such as an impact to aesthetic/scenic resources, air quality/ GHG 

emissions, cultural/historical resources, geology/soils, hazardous materials/waste, noise/vibration, 

hydrology/water quality, land use/zoning, parks/recreational areas, public health/safety, or transportation;

• The impact would affect the public or human populations; and, 

• The impact would affect minority and/or low-income populations to a greater extent than the general population 

or would be predominately borne by minority or low-income populations. 

Proposed Action

Since neither of the minority population criteria are met there are no minority populations within the affected area, 

implementation would not have the potential to cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority 

populations. However, because Census Tracts 179 and 180 are considered low-income populations, implementation 

of the Proposed Action could potentially cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income populations 

if a resource impact is identified in this EA that would affect the public or human populations. However, no adverse 

impacts have been identified in this EA that would affect the public or human populations and therefore, the Proposed 

Action could not cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income populations.

No Action Alternative

If the Proposed Action were not implemented, existing conditions would persist. The No Action Alternative would not 

result in any impacts relating to environmental justice.

3.4.3.3 Economic Impacts

Proposed Action

During construction, the region would temporarily benefit from increased jobs and demand for goods and services. The 

project is not expected to cause any substantial temporary adverse effect to businesses in the project area. Local 

businesses may benefit from construction worker patronage. Construction-related congestion in the downtown area 

would be minimized through the preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan. The plan would be prepared 

by the Contractor for approval by SANDAG and the City of Carlsbad. The Proposed Action is expected to permanently

improve commuter rail and intercity train service schedules, improve operational reliability, improve passenger and 

freight train speed, increase flexibility for freight operations, and provide increased rail capacity in the LOSSAN Rail 

Corridor. This is expected to improve the economic stability of the region by providing reliable rail transportation 

alternatives to the passenger car, reducing highway congestion, adding railroad–related employment opportunities and 

income, and provide additional revenues for the area. Also, additional passenger railroad service would generate 

additional revenues for the local transportation districts as ridership improves and more individuals choose to utilize the 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.4-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

train as an alternative to the freeways for transportation. Additional freight service would allow for additional imports 

and exports of goods, which would also permanently benefit the region economically and, theoretically, provide 

additional tax revenues for the local municipalities in the region.

No Action Alternative

The Proposed Action would involve the continuation of existing conditions. As such, the No Action Alternative would 

not result in any adverse economic impacts to the community. However, the No Action Alternative would provide none 

of the beneficial economic impacts associated with the Proposed Action (e.g. potential employment opportunities and 

increased freight and passenger operation revenues).

3.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Because there are no community impacts, economic impacts, or disproportionate impacts on minority/low-income 

population as a result of the project, no mitigation would be required for the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. 

3.4.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Because there are no community impacts, economic impacts, or disproportionate impacts on minority/low-income 

population as a result of the project, no mitigation would be required for the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative.

Because no mitigation is required, there would be no impact resulting from mitigation. 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.5-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Cultural and Historical Resources Existing Conditions 

and Evaluation Report for the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. 

(2013). The Cultural and Historical Resources Evaluation Report is provided as Appendix F of this EA.

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

3.5.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act

The NHPA Section 106 is the primary federal directives for cultural resource preservation and sets forth the national 

policy and procedures for determining eligibility of “historic properties” for the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 requires federal agencies with either direct or indirect jurisdiction over a 

proposed action to take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties. Section 106 regulations require 

consultation with a number of interest parties including Native American Tribes. Section 106 also requires federal 

agencies, and those proposing projects receiving federal funding or approval, to allow the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on undertakings on historic properties, following the procedures 

established by 36 CFR Part 800.

3.5.2 Affected Environment

3.5.2.1 Direct Effects Areas of Potential Effect

The cultural and historical resources inventory and existing conditions within the direct effects area of potential effect 

(APE) consisted of a records search and literature review from three databases, Native American correspondence, and 

an intensive pedestrian field survey. The direct effects APE used for the cultural resources field survey is depicted on 

Figure 3.5-1 below. The direct effects APE is the area that SANDAG is going to limit the Contractor to for the purpose 

of construction. The databases utilized for the records search include those of the South Coastal Information Center 

(SCIC), the San Diego Museum of Man, and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

The SCIC records search indicated that there are no previously recorded cultural resources within the direct effects 

APE and only one historic address previously recorded adjacent to the direct effect APE. Additionally, the San Diego 

Museum of Man and NAHC record searches, as well as Native American correspondence methods, did not identify 

any cultural resources located within the direct effects APE.

The intensive pedestrian survey was conducted on July 8, 2013 within the direct effects APE and indicated that there 

are no prehistoric cultural resources located within the Proposed Action area. Only the segment of the railroad 

alignment and associated railroad features were identified as a cultural resource, as they are a segment of the former 

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. (CA-SDI-16385H). While this segment of the Santa Fe Railroad has not been 

previously recorded in the Proposed Action area, other segments of this railroad have been recorded in San Diego 

County under the trinomial SDI-16385H/P-37-024739. This resource consists of 1.7 miles of typical single- and doubletrack railroad that has carried freight and passenger trains continuously since its construction from 1882 to 1885. The 

railroad segment stretches from MP 228 to MP 229.7 and includes the railroad grade, ballast, rails, ties, switches, 

spurs, bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon, culverts, a bumper stop, and signage.
SOURCE: ASM Affiliates, 2013 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Direct and Indirect APE 3.5-1

FIGURE

3.5-2

Direct Area of Potential Effects (APE)

Indirect Area of Potential Effects (APE)
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.5-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.5.2.2 Indirect Effects APE

The indirect effects APE includes a one parcel buffer around the direct effects APE. The SCIC records search indicated 

that only one historic address, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, known as the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, was listed in the 

NRHP in 1993. The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot was recorded as a Folk Victorian/Carpenter Gothic Style railroad station, 

in its original location. The station was designed and constructed in 1887 and used as a railroad depot until 1960. The 

depot was renovated in 1987 and retains its historic integrity. It is currently used as a visitors’ center for the City of 

Carlsbad.

Archival research was conducted to develop a historical context for Carlsbad and Oceanside and resource-specific 

context for resources within the APE. Additionally, a historic resource field survey was conducted on July 22, 2013 to 

document historic resources within the indirect effects APE, and all buildings and structures more than 45 years of age 

were noted and documented. The indirect effects APE used for the cultural resources field survey is depicted on Figure 

3.5-1 and is a one parcel buffer surrounding the APE. As a result, the field survey identified and documented 57 historic 

resources within the indirect effects APE. Of these 57 historic resources, seven are recommended eligible for listing in 

or are listed in the NRHP, as described in Table 3.5-1 below. Consultation between FRA and SHPO under Section 106 

of the NHPA to evaluate these eligibility determinations will be conducted concurrently with public review of this EA. 

FRA sent a letter dated August 3, 2017 to SHPO initiating the consultation under Section 106. The public may comment

on the Proposed Action’s effect on historic resources. Each of the seven resources is described in detail below.

Table 3.5-1

Eligible Historic Properties within the Indirect APE

NRHP Site Number Description

Recommended as Eligible 

under NRHP 

Criteria*

NR 93001016 Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot A, C

N/A 116 Eaton St. A, C

N/A 1920 S. Broadway St. A

N/A 417 Carlsbad Village Dr. A

N/A 457 Carlsbad Village Dr. A

N/A 3077 State St. A, C

N/A 3087 State St. A, C

Source: ASM Affiliates, Inc., 2013.

*NRHP Eligibility Criteria Key: A) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B) Associated with 

the lives of persons significant in our past; C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; D) Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot

The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot was listed in the NRHP in 1993. The depot was designed by architect Fred Perris and 

constructed in 1887. It is eligible at the local level under Criterion A under the areas of significance of transportation, 

settlement, and commerce with a period of significance from 1887 to 1943. The depot was Carlsbad’s first commercial 

and public building and served as the town’s sole depot and railroad stop from 1887 to 1960. Its construction facilitated 

the establishment and growth of the town. The depot is also eligible under Criterion C for the area of significance of 

architecture as an example of the meld of Folk Victorian and Carpenter Gothic architecture. It is the only remaining 

nineteenth-century railroad depot in San Diego County that was constructed in this combination of architectural styles 

and that remains at its original location.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.5-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

116 Eaton Street

The residence at 116 Eaton Street is recommended eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and as an Oceanside Historic Site. 

Built around 1938, the house is believed to originally have been part of the Saint Malo development, a residential 

development undertaken in the late 1930s by Pasadena architect and developer Kenyon Keith, and executed in the 

French Normandie style. Saint Malo was developed as a neighborhood of vacation homes, primarily for wealthy 

individuals in the financial and entertainment industries of the Los Angeles area. The neighborhood retains excellent 

integrity in all seven aspects. The Saint Malo neighborhood is significant on the local level for its association with the 

themes of mid-twentieth century residential development and the tourism industry in Oceanside. It is also an unusual 

collection of French Normandie style-architecture in Oceanside and in San Diego County.

1920 South Broadway Street

The residence at 1920 South Broadway Street is recommended eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and as an Oceanside 

Historic Site. Built around 1934, the house is one of the oldest remaining houses and buildings in this area of Oceanside. 

As such, it is significant on the local level for its association with the theme of early-twentieth-century residential 

development of Oceanside. It is a typical example of the restrained construction from the 1930s, and does not embody 

distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that distinguish it architecturally in comparison to 

similar buildings.

417 Carlsbad Village Drive

The structure at 417 Carlsbad Village Drive is recommended for the NRHP, CRHR, and as a Carlsbad Historic 

Landmark as a contributor to a potential Carlsbad Downtown Historic District. Downtown Carlsbad is comprised of an 

excellent collection of commercial structures from the early to mid-twentieth century. The building appears to have been 

modified to such an extent that it is not a good individual example of late 1930s commercial architecture, and does not 

embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that distinguish it architecturally in 

comparison to similar buildings.

457 Carlsbad Village Drive

The structure at 457 Carlsbad Village Drive is recommended for the NRHP, CRHR, and as a Carlsbad Historic 

Landmark as a contributor to a potential Carlsbad Downtown Historic District. As discussed above, downtown Carlsbad 

is comprised of an excellent collection of commercial structures from the early to mid-twentieth century. The building 

appears to have been modified to such an extent that it is not a good individual example of late 1930s commercial 

architecture, and does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that distinguish 

it architecturally in comparison to similar buildings.

3077 State Street

3077 State Street is recommended for the NRHP, CRHR, and as a Carlsbad Historic Landmark as a contributor to a 

potential Carlsbad Downtown Historic District. As discussed above, downtown Carlsbad is comprised of an excellent 

collection of commercial structures from the early to mid-twentieth century. The Carlsbad Downtown Historic District is

a good collection of early to mid-twentieth century commercial architecture. 3077 State Street retains good integrity 

and contributes to that aspect of the district’s significance.

3087 State Street 

3087 State Street is recommended for the NRHP, CRHR, and as a Carlsbad Historic Landmark as a contributor to a 

potential Carlsbad Downtown Historic District. As discussed above, downtown Carlsbad is comprised of an excellent 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.5-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

collection of commercial structures from the early to mid-twentieth century. The Carlsbad Downtown Historic District is 

a good collection of early to mid-twentieth century commercial architecture. 3087 State Street retains good integrity, 

and it contributes to that aspect of the district’s significance. 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences

3.5.3.1 Proposed Action

A. Direct Effects

SDI-16385H (Santa Fe Railroad) is the only historic resource located within the direct effect APE. However, the 

segment of railroad within the direct effect APE was not recommended for NRHP eligibility due to a lack of integrity.

Because this segment is not an eligible resource, the Proposed Action would not result in any direct adverse effects.

B. Indirect Effects

Seven historic resources located within the indirect effects APE for the Proposed Action are recommended as eligible: 

the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, four commercial properties in Carlsbad, and two residential properties in Oceanside.

These resources were evaluated for potential indirect effects from the Proposed Action.

Visual

The Proposed Action occurs within the existing railroad ROW and would not result in a significant change to the current 

viewsheds to or from all seven historic resources located within the indirect effects APE. Additionally, the Proposed 

Action would be compatible with the current viewsheds and would not constitute an obstructive effect. Consequently, 

the integrity, feeling, and association of these resources would not be significantly altered.

Except for the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, views from or towards these resources are not among their character-defining 

features, nor a quality that contributes to their eligibility. Views of the railroad line from the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot 

and towards the Depot from the train could be considered character-defining features. However, the Proposed Action 

would not constitute an obstructive effect, and thus would not result in adverse impacts on those character-defining 

features or the historic resource as a whole. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not constitute an adverse indirect 

visual effect.

Auditory

The effect of noise generated by the Proposed Action must be considered in relationship to the current ambient noise 

levels at each of the historic resources. As discussed in Section 3.10, Noise and Vibration, of this EA, implementation 

of the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse operational noise or vibration impacts. The Proposed Action 

would be located further from the existing receptors. As such, the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse 

indirect auditory effects.

Vibration

The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is located directly along the property line adjacent to the Proposed Action, where heavy 

construction would be taking place. Because of the nature of the materials of this historic resource, including its 

character-defining features, it is possible that vibrations generated during construction of the Proposed Action have the 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.5-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

potential to damage some of the historic fabric. Consequently, the Proposed Action has the potential to result in an 

indirect effect to a historical resource. This construction-related impact is also addressed in Section 3.16.5 and 3.16.10 

of this EA (Construction Impacts).

It should be noted that the potential vibration impact would result only from construction of the Proposed Action, not 

from operational levels. The vibration levels at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot site would result in no change with 

operation of the Proposed Action.

3.5.3.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is equivalent to the existing conditions; therefore, no impacts related to cultural resources or 

historic properties would occur under the No Action Alternative.

3.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Although the Proposed Action would not have any operational impacts on cultural resources or historic properties, the 

Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse indirect effects on the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot as a result of 

vibrations generated during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 would minimize the potential 

for any adverse indirect impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot resulting from construction activities.

CHR-1 Vibration measurements at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Historic Depot would be conducted during all construction 

activities at this location. The Contractor would be required to submit a Vibration Monitoring Plan prepared, 

stamped, and administered by an acoustical engineer. The Vibration Monitoring Plan would include the 

vibration instrumentation, location of vibration monitors, data acquisition, and exceedance notification and 

reporting procedures, as identified in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by ATS Consulting, 

Inc. 

3.5.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Because there would be no operational impacts to cultural resources or historic properties, there is no mitigation 

required, and no impacts associated with mitigation. Potential construction impacts are discussed in Sections 3.16.5 

and 3.16.10 of this EA (Construction Impacts). Mitigation is required in the form of positioning vibration instrumentation 

to measure and monitor vibrations. The location of the instrumentation will be determined by an acoustical engineer 

and it is not anticipated that this mitigation measure will have associated impacts.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.6 Geology/Soils

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information provided in the Preliminary Foundation Report 

for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Carlsbad Village Station Pedestrian Undercrossing, dated February 4, 2014, and 

the Preliminary Foundation Report for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge, dated February 

4, 2014 prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. (Appendices G1 and G2, respectively, of this EA) (Earth Mechanics, Inc., 

2014a and 2014b).

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (EHRA) (Public Law 95-124) established the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program (NEHRP) as a long-term earthquake risk reduction program for the United States. The program 

initially focused on research, led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National Science Foundation (NSF), 

toward understanding and ultimately predicting earthquakes.

U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program

The USGS created the Landslide Hazard Program (LHP) in fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113. The 

primary objective of the LHP is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving the understanding of 

the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The federal government takes the lead role in funding 

and conducting this research, whereas the reduction of losses due to geologic hazards is primarily a state and local 

responsibility.

3.6.2 Affected Environment

3.6.2.1 Geologic Setting

The Proposed Action is located within the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges Physiographic Province, which 

comprises ranges and valleys extending southeasterly from the Los Angeles-San Bernardino region to the Baja 

Peninsula in Mexico, between the San Andreas Fault on the east and the Pacific Ocean. According to the County of 

San Diego, the project site is also located within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain region, 

ranging from approximately 1 to 12 miles wide, is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Peninsular Ranges 

to the east. It is characterized by broad, planar mesas gently sloping to the west, incised by deep canyons. The 

Peninsular Ranges are a group of northwest-southeast trending mountains and valleys between the San Andreas Fault 

on the east and the offshore area called the Continental Borderland. Bedrock in the Peninsular Ranges is predominantly 

composed of Mesozoic-age granitics. The region surrounding San Diego, including the offshore Continental Borderland 

area, is transected by a series of long, mostly northwest-trending, strike-slip fault systems. The site is within a series of 

relatively flat terraces immediately inland from the beach.

The coastal terraces are dissected by westerly flowing streams, most of which are under tidal influences near the coast 

forming broad tidal flats and estuaries. The proposed improvements extend along the coastal terraces and across the 

Buena Vista Lagoon.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

The site is underlain by a thick section of young to old alluvial paralic deposits which consist of gray medium dense to 

dense sands intertongued with dark gray, soft to stiff silts and clays. The marine and continental paralic deposits are 

associated estuarine/lagoonal, alluvial, and littoral depositional environments. These deposits form a deep basin 

underneath the Buena Vista Lagoon.

The old paralic deposits are mantled by the Santiago Formation, which consists of poorly indurated, grey to brownish 

grey, silty fine-grained sandstone. The Santiago Formation also consists of interbeds and lenses of siltstone and 

claystone.

3.6.2.2 Subsurface Conditions

In 2013, geotechnical investigations were conducted by Earth Mechanics, Inc., at two separate segments of the 

Proposed Action. Firstly, a geotechnical investigation consisting of three rotary wash borings was conducted near the 

abutments of the existing Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge, referred to as the “Lagoon Segment.” Secondly, a geotechnical 

investigation consisting of two hollow-stem auger borings was conducted at the site of the proposed Carlsbad Village 

Station Pedestrian Undercrossing, referred to as the “Village Segment.” The purpose of the borings was to determine 

subsurface conditions and collect soil samples in areas of proposed improvements associated with the Proposed 

Action. The findings of each of these geotechnical investigations are further described below and are summarized from 

the Preliminary Foundation Reports prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. (Appendices G1 and G2 of this EA). 

Lagoon Segment

Borings R-13-01 and R-13-03 were performed on the access road to the east of the existing northern bridge abutment 

in October and November 2013. Boring R-13-01 was performed in October over a period of two days and was only 

able to be advanced to a depth of 60 feet due to repeated loss of drill fluid and hole collapse. Boring R-13-03 was 

performed in November also over a period of two days and was located approximately 10 feet north of boring R-13-01. 

R-13-03 was advanced to a depth of 110 feet, though fluid loss and hole collapse was also experienced.

Boring R-13-02 was performed in January of 2013 in the railroad gauge near the existing southern bridge abutment. 

Similar problems occurred with hole caving and fluid loss as those described above for Boring R-13-02. However, over 

a two-day period, the boring was able to be advanced down to a depth of about 130 feet below existing grade. Soil 

boring information including boring number, approximate location, approximate ground surface elevation and bottom 

of boring elevation is summarized in Table 3.6-1.

Village Segment

Boring A-13-03 was performed at an access road west of the existing tracks at the corner of Washington Street and 

Beech Street. Boring A-13-04 was performed in a parking lot on the east side of the existing tracks directly across from 

Boring A-13-03. Soil boring information including boring number, approximate location, approximate ground surface 

elevation and bottom of boring elevation is summarized in Table 3.6-2.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6-1

Summary of Soil Borings (Lagoon Segment)

Boring No. Approximate Station along 

MT1 Track (ft)

Approximate 

Ground Surface 

Elevation (ft)

Approximate 

Bottom of Hole 

Elevation (ft)

Approximate 

Groundwater 

Elevation (ft)

R-13-01(1) STA 2096+06, 12ft LT +8.2 -51.8 +5

R-13-02(2) STA 2073+00, 20ft RT +15.5 -114.5 +5

R-13-03(3) STA 2068+96, 15ft RT +8.2 -101.8 +5

Notes: (1) Boring station, offset and elevations surveyed by Rick Engineering.

(2) Boring station, offset and elevation approximate based on field measurement from boring R-13-01.

(3) Horizontal Datum: CCS83, Vertical Datum: NGVD29

STA: Station, LT: left, RT: right.

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014b.

Table 3.6-2

Summary of Soil Borings (Village Segment)

Boring No. Approximate Station along 

MT1 Track (ft)

Approximate 

Ground Surface 

Elevation (ft)

Approximate 

Bottom of Hole 

Elevation (ft)

Approximate 

Groundwater 

Elevation (ft)

A-13-03 STA 2093+87, 40 ft RT +39.0 -21.9 +12.0

A-13-04 STA 2094+05, 59 ft LT +36.5 -44.9 +14.8

Notes: Boring station, offset and elevations surveyed by Rick Engineering.

STA: Station, LT: left, RT: right.

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a.

3.6.2.3 Groundwater

Lagoon Segment

Groundwater was encountered in all three of the borings at approximate elevation +5 feet, similar to the water level in 

the Buena Vista Lagoon. The lagoon is currently protected from tidal influence by an existing weir at its west end where 

it outlets to the Pacific Ocean. However, the Buena Vista Lagoon is proposed for restoration in the future and the bridge 

could potentially be subject to tidal influence following the restoration. For preliminary design purposes, a conservative 

design groundwater elevation of +8 feet coincident with high tide was used in the analysis.

During drilling for all three borings, signs of artesian groundwater were encountered below about elevation -90 feet. An 

approximately 10 foot thick fat clay layer was encountered between about elevation -80 and -90 feet that currently 

serves as a confining layer (aquatard) retarding vertical flow of pressurized water. Based on the conditions encountered 

during drilling, groundwater in the layer below the aquatard is estimated to have a pressurized water head about 10 

feet above the static water table. 

Village Segment

Groundwater was encountered in both borings between elevations +12 feet and +15 feet. For preliminary design 

purposes, a design groundwater elevation of +16.5 feet was used in the analysis.

3.6.2.4 Soils

Laboratory tests were performed to determine relevant physical characteristics and engineering properties of soils that 

exist at the site. Selected soil samples were tested to determine soil classification, physical and engineering properties. 

A list of tests performed, the corresponding test method, and purpose of testing is presented in Table 3.6-3.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6-3

Soil Sample Laboratory Tests Performed

Type of Test Applicable Test Method Purpose

Dry Density ASTM1 D 2937 Estimate in-situ soil density

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 Estimate in-situ soil moisture content

No. 200 Wash ASTM D 1140 Estimate percentage of fine grained particles of soil

Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318 Estimate plasticity of fine grained soil

Soil pH CT2 532/643 Estimate corrosion potential of site soil

Minimum Resistivity CT 532/647 Estimate corrosion potential of site soil

Sulfate Content CT 417 Estimate corrosion potential of site soil

Chloride Content CT 422 Estimate corrosion potential of site soil

Notes: 1 ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

2 CT = California Test Method

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a and 2014b.

The laboratory soil tests were conducted in general accordance with California Test (CT) methods or American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The locations where tests were performed for each segment are shown 

in their respective Preliminary Foundation Reports.

Lagoon Segment

Site soils of the Lagoon Segment consist of a thick layer of coarse-grained alluvial marine sediments from the ground 

surface to a depth of about 90 feet below grade. The upper 20 to 30 feet of the layer consists of medium dense 

potentially liquefiable silty sand and sand with silt. Below about 30 feet below grade the consistency of the soils become 

medium dense to dense. The surficial sandy layer is underlain by an approximately 10 foot thick, stiff, fat clay layer.

The fat clay layer is underlain by clayey sand to the deepest depths explored.

The fat clay layer lying between about elevation -80 and -90 feet appears to be serving as an aquatard confining 

pressurized groundwater below about elevation -90 feet. Blow counts in the coarse-grained clayey sand below the clay 

layer indicate that the material is loose to medium dense and potentially liquefiable. However, the pressurized aquifer 

very likely caused a “quick” condition in the borings resulting in low penetration blow counts that are not representative 

of the soils in-situ density.

Based on information collected from the borings described under Section 3.6.2.2, Subsurface Conditions, an idealized 

soil profile was developed at the site. The soil profile and design strength parameters are presented in Table 3.6-4. The 

cohesion values for clayey soils and shear strength parameters for sandy soils were estimated using laboratory test 

data and correlations between field blow count and shear strength.

Village Segment

Site soils of the Village Segment consist of about 15-20 feet of very dense silty and clayey sand and very stiff to hard 

clay, underlain by very dense silty sand.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6-4

Idealized Soil Profile and Strength Parameters (Lagoon Segment)

Approximate 

Elevation

(ft)

Predominant Soil Type

Range of SPT blow 

counts – (N60)

(blows/ft)

Total Unit 

Weight

(pcf)

Cohesion

(psf)

Friction 

Angle 

(degree)

+15 to -25 Sand with Silt/Silty Sand 5 – (46)(1)

Avg = 20 115 100 30

-25 to -52 Silty Sand/Sand with Silt 12 – 75

Avg = 47 120 0 35

-52 to -78 Silty Sand/Sand with Silt 20 – 77

Avg = 39 120 0 33

-78 to -88 Lean to Fat Clay 10 – 17

Avg = 13 120 1500 0

-88 to -115 Clayey Sand 15(2) – 21(2)

Avg = 19(2) 120 0 30

Notes: (1) Values in ( ) are California Modified sampler blow counts converted to equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts using a 

sampler size correction factor of 0.67.

(2) In-situ density of coarse-grained soils in pressurized aquifers expected to be greater than indicated by penetration blow counts.

ft: feet, pcf: pound per cubic foot, psf: pound per square foot.

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014b.

Based on information collected from the borings described under Section 3.6.2.2, Subsurface Conditions, an idealized 

soil profile was developed at the site. The soil profile and design strength parameters are presented in Table 3.6-5. The 

shear strength parameters for sandy soils were estimated using correlations between field blow counts and shear 

strength.

Table 3.6-5

Idealized Soil Profile and Strength Parameters (Village Segment)

Approximate 

Elevation

(ft)

Predominant Soil Type

Range of SPT blow 

counts – (N60)

(blows/ft)

Total Unit 

Weight

(pcf)

Cohesion

(psf)

Friction 

Angle 

(degree)

+36.5 to +16.5 Silty Sand/Clayey Sand/Fat 

Clay

(27)(1) to >50

Avg = >50 120 0 34

+16.5 to -44.9 Silty Sand/Sandy Lean 

Clay >50 120 0 38

Notes: (1) Values in ( ) are California Modified sampler blow counts converted to equivalent SPT blow counts using a sampler size correction factor 

of 0.67.

ft: feet, pcf: pound per cubic foot, psf: pound per square foot.

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a.

3.6.2.5 Faulting, Seismicity and Associated Geologic Hazards

The Proposed Action is located in seismically active southern California and is subject to shaking from both local and 

distant earthquakes. The possibility of large seismic events on the nearby Newport Inglewood – Rose Canyon fault 

zone would control seismic design of the project. Based on the as-builts for the existing bridge, which show the design 

as of 1984, it is unlikely that the existing bridge meets the current seismic design criteria, particularly in relation to the 

requirements for liquefaction. However, that is not an indication that the bridge is not seismically safe. Table 3.6-6 lists 

the nearest active faults, fault type and their maximum earthquake magnitude according to the Caltrans Fault Database.

The distances from the Proposed Action to each fault were determined using the Caltrans ARS Online web tool V2.2.06. 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6-6

Project Area Fault Data

Fault Fault Type

Maximum 

Earthquake 

Magnitude

Distance from 

Site to Fault

(miles)

Surface 

Fault/Blind 

Fault

Rose Canyon fault zone (Oceanside section) RLSS 6.8 4.6 Surface

Newport Inglewood (Offshore) RLSS 6.9 5.5 Surface

Rose Canyon fault zone (Del Mar section) RLSS 6.8 8.9 Surface

Notes: RLSS = Right Lateral Strike Slip

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a and 2014b.

No major faults are known to extend through the site area so the potential for surface rupture is considered low. In 

addition, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated in the project area by the California 

Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines and Geology.

Seismic Design Criteria

It is likely that the seismic design of both the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge and the Pedestrian Undercrossing would be 

based on the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) Manual.

Utilizing AREMA methodology, three levels of seismic risk are considered in design. Per the 2013 Manual for Railway 

Engineering, the conservative return periods of the design seismic event correspond to the 100-year, the 500-year, and 

the 2,400-year seismic events. These events correspond to the bridge performance criteria for the Serviceability, 

Ultimate, and Survivability Limit States, respectively.

The Base Acceleration Coefficients (AR) were estimated based on data from the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard 

Map, for the 100-year, 500-year, and 2400-year return period earthquakes. The Site Coefficient (S) was estimated 

based on the soil conditions of the project site and AREMA manual. The acceleration response spectral (ARS) curve 

design parameters are presented in Table 3.6-7.

Table 3.6-7

Geotechnical Input for AREMA (2013) ARS Curve

Earthquake Return 

Period (yrs.) Service Level Base Acceleration Coefficient (AR) Site Coefficient (S)

Lagoon Village Lagoon Village

100 Serviceability 0.149 0.132

500 Ultimate 0.276 0.259 1.2 1.0

2,400 Survivability 0.477 0.483

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a and 2014b.

Lagoon Segment

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement

In general, the material in the upper 20 feet below groundwater (above Elevation -15 feet) is considered potentially 

liquefiable during the Serviceability and Ultimate seismic events. During the Survivability seismic event, an additional 

10 feet of material between about elevation -15 and -25 feet is considered potentially liquefiable. Settlement on the 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

order of a few inches is expected during the Serviceability and Ultimate seismic events with several inches of settlement 

anticipated during the Ultimate seismic event.

Seismic Slope Instability

The “global” stability of the banks of the Buena Vista Lagoon near the proposed abutments was evaluated for the 

pseudo-static condition. The horizontal ground acceleration equal to one third (1/3) of the peak ground acceleration for 

each level earthquake was used in the analysis. The residual shear strength of liquefiable soils was estimated. The 

material used for the proposed fill behind the abutments was assumed to have a friction angle of 30 degrees and 

minimum cohesion of 100 psf.

Village Segment

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement

Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation, the coarse grained soils were found to be very dense. Due to the 

very dense nature of the coarse-grained site soils the liquefaction potential of site soils is considered low. In addition, 

seismically induced settlement of dry and partially saturated soils due to strong shaking is expected to be negligible 

due to the predominately very dense nature of the on-site soils.

Seismic Slope Instability

Since liquefaction is not expected to be an issue for the native deposits, site soils are not expected to suffer significant 

loss of strength during design earthquakes. Therefore, any cut slopes around the structure are expected to be stable 

during design earthquakes.

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences

3.6.3.1 Proposed Action

Lagoon Segment

Groundwater

As previously mentioned, groundwater was encountered in all three of the borings at approximate elevation +5 feet, 

similar to the water level in the Buena Vista Lagoon. During drilling for all three borings, signs of artesian groundwater 

were encountered below about elevation -90 feet. An approximately 10-foot thick fat clay layer was encountered 

between about elevation -80 and -90 feet that currently serves as a confining layer (aquatard) retarding vertical flow of 

pressurized water. Based on the conditions encountered during drilling, groundwater in the layer below the aquatard is 

estimated to have a pressurized water head about 10 feet above the static water table. The artesian condition would 

need to be investigated further and quantified in a future geotechnical investigation as it could present construction 

issues for the proposed replacement structure foundation. As such, potential impacts associated with groundwater 

would be considered adverse. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1 (refer to Section 3.6.4), it is 

anticipated that impacts would be reduced to a negligible level.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

In addition, groundwater monitoring wells are recommended to be installed as part of a supplemental geotechnical 

investigation performed during final design to provide the contractors with the necessary information to determine the 

appropriate Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) pile excavation methods.

Soils

As previously mentioned, site soils of the Lagoon Segment consist of a thick layer of coarse-grained alluvial marine 

sediments from the ground surface to a depth of about 90 feet below grade. The upper 20 to 30 feet of the layer consists 

of medium dense potentially liquefiable silty sand and sand with silt. Below about 30 feet below grade the consistency 

of the soils become medium dense to dense. The surficial sandy layer is underlain by an approximately 10 foot thick, 

stiff, fat clay layer. The fat clay layer is underlain by clayey sand to the deepest depths explored.

Samples representative of soils throughout the project area were tested to determine corrosivity including minimum 

resistivity, pH, soluble sulfate content, and soluble chloride content. Two soil samples were tested for corrosivity. The 

minimum resistivity ranged from 35 to 860 ohm-cm. The pH ranged from 6.95 to 7.38. The soluble sulfate ranged from 

180 to 1,100 ppm, and the soluble chloride ranged from 525 to 12,454 ppm. 

According to Caltrans criteria (Corrosion Guidelines V2.0, 2012), soils are considered corrosive if the pH is 5.5 or less, 

or sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater, or chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater. Based on these test 

results and Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils of the Lagoon Segment are classified to be corrosive. As such, potential 

impacts associated with corrosive soils would be considered adverse. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 

GS-3 (Section 3.6.4), it is anticipated that impacts associated with corrosive soils would be reduced to a negligible

level.

Faulting and Seismicity

No major faults are known to extend through the site area so the potential for surface rupture is considered low. In 

addition, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated in the project area by the California 

Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines and Geology. However, the Proposed Action is located in seismically 

active southern California and would be subject to shaking from both local and distant earthquakes. The possibility of 

large seismic events on the nearby Newport Inglewood – Rose Canyon fault zone would have the potential to result in 

adverse impacts to the project site. As previously stated, it is unlikely that the existing bridge meets the current seismic 

design criteria, particularly in relation to the requirements for liquefaction. However, the Proposed Action includes the 

replacement of the existing Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge, and the seismic design of the proposed bridge would be 

required to incorporate the seismic design criteria provided in the AREMA Manual pursuant to 49 CFR 237.

In addition, the global stability of the banks of the Buena Vista Lagoon near the proposed abutments was evaluated for 

the pseudo-static condition. Based on the results of the preliminary pseudo-static analysis, lateral movement of the 

approach embankment towards the Buena Vista Lagoon is anticipated to be negligible during all three design seismic 

events. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts associated with faulting and seismicity in the Lagoon Segment.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement

The near surface marine and estuary deposits were observed to be loose to medium dense and potentially liquefiable; 

therefore, spread footings are not recommended for support of the replacement structure. In general, the material in 

the upper 20 feet below groundwater (above Elevation -15 feet) is considered potentially liquefiable during the 

Serviceability and Ultimate seismic events. During the Survivability seismic event, an additional 10 feet of material 

between about elevation -15 and -25 feet is considered potentially liquefiable. Settlement on the order of a few inches 

is expected during the Serviceability and Ultimate seismic events with several inches of settlement anticipated during 

the Ultimate seismic event. As such, potential impacts would be considered adverse. However, with implementation of 

Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 (see Section 3.6.4), it is anticipated that impacts associated with liquefaction and 

seismically induced settlement would be reduced to a negligible level.

Scour Potential

Under existing conditions, the Buena Vista Lagoon is protected from tidal influence by a beach berm and a weir, located 

at the lagoon mouth (SANDAG, 2013d). The existing bridge is founded on piles without a pile cap, which are used to 

protect bridge pilings from scour damage. As such, there are no existing significant issues with scour which would 

impact the existing bridge. However, a complete scour evaluation is currently being conducted as part of the Buena 

Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project. The enhancement project is evaluating four potential alternatives: freshwater 

enhancement, saltwater enhancement, a hybrid enhancement containing both freshwater and saltwater, and a no 

project alternative. The scour potential of either restoration alternative is expected to increase over the current 

configuration. The results of the scour analysis would be incorporated into the geotechnical recommendations during 

final design.

For preliminary pseudo-static global stability analysis and seismic pile analyses, long term scour was considered 

negligible and local scour was not considered due to the unlikelihood that the maximum design earthquake and the 

maximum design flood would be experienced concurrently. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to the Lagoon 

Segment associated with potential scour.

Village Segment

Groundwater

As previously discussed, groundwater was encountered in both borings between elevations +12 feet and +15 feet.

However, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action would result in any adverse impacts 

associated groundwater. Therefore, no impacts associated with groundwater have been identified for the Village 

Segment.

Soils

As previously discussed, site soils of the Village Segment consist of about 15-20 feet of very dense silty and clayey 

sand and very stiff to hard clay, underlain by very dense silty sand. Both abutments and interior supports for the 

proposed structure are anticipated to be embedded in native soils. Based upon the site-specific field investigation, 

native soils are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure on spread footings. However, due to the 

space limitations for footing construction next to live tracks, spread footings would require extra work windows to 

construct; therefore, deep foundations are preferred.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

In addition, samples representative of soils throughout the project area were tested to determine corrosivity including 

minimum resistivity, pH, soluble sulfate content, and soluble chloride content. Two soil samples were tested for 

corrosivity. The minimum resistivity ranged from 990 to 1,900 ohm-cm. The pH ranged from 8.1 to 9.0. The soluble 

sulfate ranged from 160 to 300 ppm, and the soluble chloride ranged from 144 to 160 ppm. 

According to Caltrans criteria (Corrosion Guidelines V2.0, 2012), soils are considered corrosive if the pH is 5.5 or less, 

or sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater, or chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater. Based on these test 

results and Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils of the Village Segment are classified to be non-corrosive. Therefore, there 

would be no impacts associated with corrosive soils.

Faulting and Seismicity

No major faults are known to extend through the site area so the potential for surface rupture is considered low. In 

addition, no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated in the project area by the California 

Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines and Geology. However, the Proposed Action is located in seismically 

active southern California and would be subject to shaking from both local and distant earthquakes. The possibility of 

large seismic events on the nearby Newport Inglewood – Rose Canyon fault zone would have the potential to result in 

adverse impacts to the project site. However, the seismic design of the proposed Pedestrian Undercrossing would be 

required to incorporate the seismic building design criteria provided in the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions 

Manual pursuant to the provisions of the EHRA.

Since liquefaction is not expected to be an issue for the native deposits, site soils are not expected to suffer significant 

loss of strength during design earthquakes. Therefore, any cut slopes around the structure are expected to be stable 

during design earthquakes. As such, there would be no adverse impacts associated with faulting and seismicity for the 

Village Segment.

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement

Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation, the coarse grained soils were found to be very dense. Due to the 

very dense nature of the coarse-grained site soils the liquefaction potential of site soils is considered low. In addition, 

seismically induced settlement of dry and partially saturated soils due to strong shaking is expected to be negligible 

due to the predominately very dense nature of the on-site soils. Therefore, liquefaction and seismically induced 

settlement are not expected to impact the proposed bridge foundation.

Scour Potential

The Carlsbad Village Station Pedestrian Undercrossing does not cross a waterway and therefore scour potential is not 

considered a design constraint.

3.6.3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed double-track would not be constructed and the existing single-track 

would remain along this segment of the LOSSAN corridor. As such, the existing geology and soils would remain as 

they exist today, and no impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no 

impacts to geology and soils.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse impacts to geology and soils in the Lagoon 

Segment. As such, SANDAG would implement the following mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to geology 

and soils to a negligible level.

GS-1 Following bridge type selection, a supplemental geotechnical field investigation would be performed once the 

final foundation type has been determined. The supplemental investigation would include one geotechnical 

boring near the northern abutment that would be converted over to a monitoring well at the completion of the 

boring to record groundwater pressures. A set of fully grouted vibrating wire piezometers would be installed 

at a location that could be protected through design and construction. Properly located, the piezometers would

be used by SANDAG and the Contractor to determine the groundwater conditions prior and continuously 

throughout construction to determine necessary measures in the Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) pile installation 

plan and to resolve potential differing site condition claims.

GS-2 A Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding near the northern abutment would be performed, as needed, for the 

Designer to evaluate the in-situ density of the soils within the pressurized aquifer and to provide continuous 

information throughout the profile to further evaluate the liquefaction potential of material that were identified 

as potentially liquefiable.

GS-3 Soil corrosivity issues will be addressed in conformance with AREMA during subsequent design efforts by the 

Designer. Possible mitigation measures would include increased cover for reinforcing steel and corrosion 

resistant cement (for concrete piles), and sacrificial steel would be provided for steel surfaces in contact with 

site soils.

In order to avoid and/or minimize any impacts to geology and soils, pursuant to the EHRA and the USGS LHP in 

fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, SANDAG would implement the following avoidance and 

minimization measure to protect geology and soils both during design and during construction of the Proposed Action, 

and would reduce any potential impacts to a negligible level.

GS-4 All future grading and construction of the project site by the Contractor would comply with the geotechnical 

recommendations contained in the Preliminary Foundation Reports prepared for the Carlsbad Village Station 

Pedestrian Undercrossing and the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge (Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a and 2014b).

These reports identify specific geotechnical recommendations that would be implemented during the design 

and construction of the project.

3.6.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 would include geotechnical recommendations that may involve 

boring, installation of piezometers and a CPT. However, these mitigation measures would be conducted by professional 

personnel and would follow procedures established during the initial geology and soils studies. Therefore, it is not 

anticipated that there will be adverse impacts associated with mitigation implementation.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.6 Geology/Soils

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.6-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Pacific 

Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project prepared by St. George Chadux Corp. (2013). The Environmental Site 

Assessment is provided as Appendix H of this EA.

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting

3.7.1.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a U.S. law that provides the general guidelines for the waste 

management program. It includes a Congressional mandate directing the EPA to develop a comprehensive set of 

regulations to implement the law. The hazardous waste program, under RCRA Subtitle C, establishes a system for 

controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal – in effect, from “cradle to grave” 

(EPA, 2012a).

3.7.1.2 Clean Water Act

The CWA is the principal statute governing water quality and established the basic framework for regulating the 

discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, a permit system known as the NPDES. The EPA is given the authority 

to implement pollution control programs. The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any 

point source (including stormwater discharges) into WoUS. As defined in the CWA, WoUS applies only to surface 

waters, rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands. The authority to implement the NPDES program is 

generally delegated to individual States.

3.7.1.3 Clean Air Act

The CAA contains key provisions to protect public health and welfare from different types of air pollution caused by a 

diverse array of pollution sources. The CAA also contains specific provisions to address “hazardous” or “toxic” air 

pollutants that pose health risks such as cancer or environmental threats such as bioaccumulation of heavy metals 

(EPA, 2013a).

3.7.1.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as 

Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond 

directly to releases of threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment 

(EPA, 2011a).

3.7.1.5 Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act

The Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended CERCLA on October 17, 1986, making several 

important changes reflecting the EPA’s experience in administering the Superfund program in its first six years. SARA 

increased focus on human health problems associated with hazardous waste, permanent and innovative technologies 

for cleaning up hazardous waste sites, and required the EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) (EPA, 2011b).
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.7.1.6 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandates that the EPA regulate the use and sale of 

pesticides to protect human health and preserve the environment (EPA, 2012b).

3.1.7.7 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

The Hazardous Material Transportation Act (HMTA) provides for adequate protection against the risks to life and 

property inherent in the transportation of hazardous material in commerce by improving the regulatory and enforcement 

authority of the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation defines a hazardous material as any 

“particular quantity or form” of a material that “may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property” (EPA, 

2011c)

3.7.1.8 Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of American’s drinking water.

Under SDWA, the EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers 

who implement those standards (EPA, 2012c).

3.7.1.9 Toxic Substances Control Act

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and 

testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. The TSCA addresses the 

production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), asbestos, 

radon, and lead-based paint (EPA, 2013b).

3.7.2 Affected Environment

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by St. George Chadux Corporation is intended for use 

in identifying, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the Proposed Action 

(described below as the “subject property”). The assessment included a site inspection and research of public and 

regulatory agency databases. Formal interviews were not conducted as part of the ESA. Additionally, the scope of work 

for the ESA was in general accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 

I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM Designation: E1527-05). The ASTM defines a REC as “the presence 

of or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate 

an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products 

even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions (DMC) that 

generally do not present a material risk to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject 

of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies.”

The project impact area, referred to as the subject property in this section, is located within the existing NCTD ROW 

along the LOSSAN rail corridor (Figure 2-1). From review of databases and applicable files, the subject property has 

been used as a single-track railway, including a single-track bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon, since the 1880’s.

Associated buildings include the Carlsbad Village Station and the former Santa Fe Train Station, (now the Carlsbad 

Convention & Visitors Bureau). The NCTD operates a storage yard on the subject property. In addition, two electrical 

switching stations are located on the subject property, with one on each of the northern and southern boundary. Three 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

separate active construction sites were observed within 0.25 miles of the subject property, with one construction site 

directly adjacent to the subject property. The subject property was not listed in any of the environmental databases.

3.7.2.1 On-Site Findings

General Housekeeping Practices

General housekeeping (day-to-day environmental management practices such as site upkeep and maintenance) was 

found to be fair throughout the subject property. Debris observed during the inspection included items used by 

transients, broken concrete containing rebar, and a discarded concrete block with an attached weathered electrical 

box. Based on visual inspection of the broken concrete, it did not appear to contain transite, which is an asbestoscement product. An apparent oil sheen (petroleum product with iridescent color) was noted in the surface water of the 

Buena Vista Lagoon at the northeast corner of the single-track bridge, and was primarily in the reeds. Although there 

was no obvious source identified, the oil could have potentially originated from illegal dumping from the bank of the 

lagoon, or from motorized watercraft. However, the oil sheen is not believed to be part of a larger plume, and thus 

represents a DMC. Furthermore, there was no evidence of soil staining, standing liquids, stressed vegetation, or PCB 

transformers observed on the property.

Vegetation

The property supports a variety of vegetation, including ice plant, wetland vegetation, and a mixture of grasses, weeds, 

and shrubs. Areas around the main station and Visitors Bureau and adjacent areas are actively landscaped, weeded, 

and irrigated. Herbicides or pesticides were observed being applied to landscaped areas around the Carlsbad Village 

Station, and are assumed to also be applied to landscaped areas at the Visitors Bureau and two parks.

Buildings and Structures

Two buildings are located on the subject property. The Carlsbad Village Station, built in 1995, is one story and is made 

of concrete and wood. Based on the age of the building, neither asbestos containing materials (ACM) nor lead-based 

paint is suspected. The Carlsbad Convention & Visitors Bureau, built in 1887, is a two-story structure made of wood. 

Though not observed, based on the age of the building, ACM and/or lead-based paint may be present. Visual inspection 

of the exterior of the building indicated a recent application of paint in good condition that would not indicate a leadbased paint exterior coat. In addition, the two electrical switching stations structures did not show any signs of 

contaminant release.

Historic Uses

Based on the historic use of the subject property as an active rail line since the 1880s, there are potential RECs that 

could exist on the subject property. The following constituents may be present based on the historic use of the subject 

property:

Creosote, a wood preservative compound made from distilled coal tar that may have been applied to the railroad ties 

and wooden bridge elements.

Heavy metals, such as arsenic, may have been used in herbicides applied in the ballasts or used in wood preservatives.

Similarly, lead may be present from fuel combustion products.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Petroleum based compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), diesel range organics, hydraulic fluids, 

and degreasing solvents, may be present due to small repetitive leaks over time from the passing trains and fuel 

combustion products.

Other non-metal herbicide compounds may have been previously applied to ballasts.

Environmental Conditions of Concern Not Present

A number of additional environmental conditions of concern were evaluated in the ESA for potential presence on the 

subject property, but were not observed to be present:

• Hazardous material storage, use, and handling;

• Spill and stain areas;

• PCBs;

• Underground and aboveground storage tanks;

• Friable and non-friable suspect asbestos containing materials;

• Landfills ;

• Pits or ponds;

• Radon;

• Solid waste disposal;

• Process wastewater disposal; and,

• Potable water/wells and cisterns.

3.7.2.2 Off-Site Findings

Active Construction Sites

Three active construction sites were observed within the vicinity of the property, however only the Army Navy Academy 

campus is located directly adjacent to the subject property. Heavy equipment was observed at the site. No refueling 

station or tanks were observed at the construction site. Due to the presence of heavy machinery, it is possible that 

petroleum products may leak from the machines and onto the surface soil. However, based on observations, there is 

no evidence suggesting that hazardous contaminants were released from current construction activities.

Hazardous Sites Database Searches

A records review of federal, state, and local regulatory agency databases was also used to evaluate environmental

conditions of potential concern with the subject property and surrounding properties within a 1-mile radius. Within the 

1-mile radius of the subject property, the database search revealed one State-equivalent National Priorities List site, 

two Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) properties, 

13 properties identified as either a RCRA Large Quantity Generator (LQG) or a Small Quantity Generator (SQG), two 

Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) sites, and one solid waste disposal site. However, based on the 

location and status of these sites, they do not pose a significant REC to the subject property. Additionally, a review of 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list revealed that there are 44 LUST sites within 0.5 miles of the subject 

property. Of the 44 sites identified, two were determined to pose a potential REC to the subject property because of 

their open status, reported releases, and location in relation to the subject property: Regent (currently Liberty Oil, Inc.) 

and Econo Lube N Tune (formerly Chevron Service Station No. 9-6978).

Regent (1943 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA) – Formerly Golden State Service Station, the cleanup status of this 

facility is listed as “Open-Site Assessment as of 12/18/2009.” Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was observed in 

1986. Analytical results from 2012 indicated that the dissolved gasoline plume has migrated at least 875 feet southwest 

of the source.

Econo Lube N Tune (1942 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA) – The cleanup status of this facility is listed as “OpenRemediation as of 12/26/2001.” Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and benzene were detected in a 

groundwater sample in 1998. In 2009, free product sample was detected in one monitoring well. Additionally, many of 

the groundwater samples collected from site monitoring wells in March 2013 contained detectable dissolved-phase 

hydrocarbon concentrations above their respective laboratory method detection limits.

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Common contaminants found along railroad corridors include creosote from treated wood railroad ties, heavy metals, 

petroleum constituents from oils or fuels that have dripped from passing rail cars, and/or PAH, a by-product of fuel 

combustion.

The project site was not identified on the environmental database search report obtained for the project, as discussed 

in the ESA. A number of surrounding sites were identified in the environmental database search report, and 

documented releases affecting soil and groundwater have been identified. Based on review and analysis of the 

database listings, two of the surrounding sites were determined to pose a potential REC to the subject property because 

of their open status, reported releases, and location in relation to the subject property.

Additionally, based on the age of the Carlsbad Convention & Visitor Bureau built in 1887, ACM and/or lead-based paint 

may be present. The Proposed Action does not include disturbance or modification to the Carlsbad Convention & 

Visitors Bureau; therefore, no hazardous materials/waste impacts are associated with the building. 

The property was not listed in any of the environmental databases searched, nor was any RECs identified on the 

subject property requiring further assessment or remedial action. 

Due to the intrusive nature of the proposed construction project, preliminary media sampling (surface and near surface 

soils in particular) will be conducted prior to any intrusive work at the site to confirm whether contaminants are or are 

not present at the subject property. If these contaminants are present, they may pose a risk to human health (site 

workers and the public within the vicinity of the subject property) from the inhalation of dust or direct contact with skin 

or eyes. Further, the contaminants may pose a risk to natural habitat or sensitive species in the open area around the 

lagoon, and may threaten the water quality of the lagoon.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.7-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Therefore, the Proposed Action could have an adverse impact related to hazardous materials/hazardous waste. 

However, with the implementation of HZ-1, the Proposed Action will minimize potential adverse impacts related to 

hazardous materials/waste. The Proposed Action is in compliance with all applicable regulations discussed in the 

regulatory setting.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is equivalent to the existing conditions; therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materialshazardous waste are associated with maintaining the existing conditions.

3.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action could have an adverse impact related to hazardous materials/hazardous waste. In order to assure 

that contaminants are not present and minimize potential adverse impacts, the following mitigation measure will be 

implemented:

HZ-1 Conduct preliminary media sampling (surface and near surface soils in particular) prior to any intrusive work 

at the site to confirm whether contaminants are or are not present at the subject property.

3.7.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Implementation of media sampling would be performed by qualified professionals in accordance with standard sampling 

methods and would not result in an adverse impact to the environment.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.8 Hydrology

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.8-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.8 Hydrology

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Preliminary Drainage Study for the Carlsbad Village 

Double Track Project (T.Y. Lin, 2014b), and the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge Fluvial Hydraulic Analysis Draft Report

(Everest International, 2014). These reports are provided as Appendices I1 and I2, respectively, of this EA.

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

Executive Order 11988

EO 11988 was established in order to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated 

with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Order requires agencies to provide leadership and to take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out federal responsibilities.

3.8.2 Affected Environment

Hydrologic Setting

The project area is located within the Carlsbad HA (904.20) and the Agua Hedionda HA (904.30), which are within the 

Carlsbad Hydrology Unit (904.00). The receiving waters for the project area are the Buena Vista Lagoon to the north, 

which only mixes with the Pacific Ocean water during high storm events and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south, 

which discharges to the Pacific Ocean. 

The majority of the project (north of Carlsbad Village Drive) drains into the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista 

Lagoon is a freshwater lagoon, separated from the Pacific Ocean and its tidal influence by a weir located at the lagoon 

outlet, approximately 100 feet from the coast. There are two swales located on either side of the tracks at the north end 

of the project that drain southerly into the lagoon. The NCTD ROW in this area is unpaved. A portion of the surrounding 

neighborhood consisting of single-family homes drains into the trackside swales.

To the south, Washington Street and its surrounding parcels, the Army and Navy Academy Athletic Field, and the 

NCTD ROW west of the tracks drain along a trackside ditch that flows north into Buena Vista Lagoon. Two inlets located 

on Washington Street lead to the ditch through two 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). Additional offsite flows 

join the ditch north of Beech Avenue by a 19x30 inch elliptical RCP storm drain connected to four inlets collecting runoff 

from Carlsbad Boulevard and surrounding parcels. Peak flow data from the offsite portion of Carlsbad Boulevard was 

incorporated in the study.

The northernmost portion of the station parking lot, the unpaved NCTD maintenance yard, and the NCTD ROW east 

of the tracks drain north into the lagoon in a swale along the east side of the tracks. The remaining portion of the station 

parking lot, the station itself, Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive all drain into the City of Carlsbad storm drain 

system. The storm drain system leads to a 66-inch storm drain that follows the alley just east of the station out to State 

Street then outfalls into Buena Vista Lagoon. South of Carlsbad Village Drive, runoff from the project joins the Santa 

Fe Storm Drain, an 84-inch RCP storm drain that flows south directly into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.8 Hydrology

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.8-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Flooding

Under existing conditions, the water level in the lagoon is generally governed by the invert elevation of the weir located 

at the lagoon outlet. For existing lagoon condition scenarios utilized to determine the impact of flood flows on water 

surface elevations, a water elevation of 5.6 feet was utilized to represent the initial lagoon water level, as this elevation

matches the invert elevation of the existing weir. Under existing lagoon and bridge conditions, the 50-year and 100-

year maximum flood water elevations at the existing railroad bridge are 10.4 feet and 12.3 feet, respectively.

Buena Vista Lagoon is identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area, Zone A, according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (FIRM) #06073C0761G (FEMA, 2013), indicating an area subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance 

(100-year) flood event, “generally determined using approximate methodologies due to a lack of detailed hydraulic 

analyses, including base flood elevations.” Although a detailed hydraulic analysis, including base flood elevations, has 

been provided with the Fluvial Hydraulic Analysis Report (Everest International, 2014), the lagoon is expected to remain 

designated Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A, indicating a lack of hydraulic analysis or base flood elevations, until 

FEMA maps are officially updated. Once the maps are updated, it is anticipated that this area would be designated 

Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AE, an area that features the same risk of inundation as Zone A, but with base flood 

elevations established.

The existing railroad bridge generally avoids the flood hazard area by passing over the lagoon at an elevation of 

approximately 16 feet AMSL. However, in the center of the bridge, at its lowest point, there is an approximately 50-foot 

segment of track through which the existing alignment passes through the flood hazard area. In the event of a 100-year 

flood event, this portion of the bridge would be inundated by flood waters and rail service within the project area would 

be temporarily suspended until flooding subsides.

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The construction of the new second track, removal of 15 feet of existing platform, and construction of a second westerly 

platform would result in a total of 1.48 acres of impervious area on the project site, which is a total net increase of 0.02 

acres, but would maintain the existing overall drainage patterns in the area. The Proposed Action would not increase 

the peak flows in the existing storm drain system, and thus would not have any adverse impacts to the system.

The two inlets on Washington Street would be reconstructed and the storm drain would be re-routed to flow around the 

proposed pedestrian access ramps. North of the lagoon, the realignment of the tracks would increase the size of the 

westerly basin, causing an increase in runoff west of the tracks, and would decrease the size of the easterly basin, 

causing a decrease in runoff east of the tracks. There would be a slight increase in flow in the westerly trackside ditch 

south of the lagoon, but this flow drains directly into Buena Vista Lagoon, which would not be affected by the increase. 

The drainage ditches along the tracks would be re-graded to provide proper flow capacity and comply with NCTD 

standards, and riprap energy dissipaters would be constructed at the discharge points into the lagoon to mitigate 100-

year storm velocities and prevent excessive erosion. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.8 Hydrology

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.8-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Flooding

The Proposed Action involves construction of a new double-tracked bridge that would raise the elevation of the tracks 

by five feet, thereby removing the tracks from within the Special Flood Hazard Area and eliminating potential flood 

hazard impacts to rail service. The new bridge would also be sufficiently high to avoid flood risks associated with the 

100-year storm event occurring coincident with a 5.5 foot increase in mean sea level projected for the year 2100. This 

would also be sufficiently high to accommodate the additional risk associated with flow changes attributed to the 

currently anticipated future improvements to the two other Buena Vista Lagoon bridges (the I-5 bridge and the Coast 

Highway bridge). 

Using a fluvial hydraulic model that represents the lagoon as four separate basins (Weir Basin, Railroad Basin, Coast 

Highway Basin, and I-5 Basin), the impact of the proposed bridge on flooding throughout the lagoon was evaluated 

based on changes to flood water levels associated with the proposed conditions. As shown in Table 3.8-1 below, the 

maximum water elevations under the proposed conditions (scenarios 3 and 4) are the same as under the existing 

conditions (scenarios 1 and 2). Additionally, a 25-year storm event was modeled to simulate flooding conditions during 

construction of the proposed bridge. Maximum water elevations at the bridge during construction were determined to 

be 8.9 feet. These results indicate that the proposed bridge would not cause adverse flooding impacts during either 

construction or operation.

Table 3.8-1

Maximum Water Elevations Comparison between Existing and Proposed 

Railroad Bridges

Scenario 

No.

Storm 

Event

Railroad 

Bridge

Maximum Water Elevation

Weir Basin Railroad Basin Coast Highway 

Basin I-5 Basin

1 50-Year Existing 10.4 10.4 10.5 13.5

2 100-Year Existing 12.2 12.3 12.3 16.3

3 50-Year Proposed 10.4 10.4 10.5 13.5

4 100-Year Proposed 12.2 12.3 12.3 16.3

Source: Everest International, 2014

With installation of the proposed bridge, the maximum flood elevations during a 50-year and 100-year storm event at 

the bridge location are not expected to exceed the maximum flood elevations during a 50-year and 100-year storm 

event under the existing conditions (10.4 feet and 12.3 feet, respectively). Model results indicate the flood conditions 

with the proposed bridge would be the same. However, accounting for the projected mean sea level increase 

anticipated by the years 2050 and 2100, maximum flood elevations during the 100-year storm event would be 12.3 feet 

and 12.5 feet, respectively. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no project related activities, including construction, would occur. The project area 

would remain as it exists today; therefore, there would be no impact on hydrology.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.8 Hydrology

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.8-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action would not adversely impact the drainage patterns within the project area’s hydrologic setting. To 

ensure no permanent impacts to hydrology occur, a hydromodification management plan, and a SWPPP detailing 

BMPs would be prepared during final design. No mitigation measures are required.

3.8.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Since the implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any anticipated impacts to hydrology or flooding, 

no mitigation measures are required. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

The information contained in this section is summarized from the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 

Land Use Technical Report (BRG, 2014d) as well as the Community Impact Assessment prepared by BRG Consulting, 

Inc. (BRG, 2014b). The Land Use Technical Report is provided as Appendix J of this EA. The Community Impact 

Assessment is provided as Appendix D of this EA.

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

3.9.1.1 Federal

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The CZMA encourages states/tribes to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance valuable 

natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as 

well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats (NOAA, 2013). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA’s) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) administers the CZMA at the federal level. The 

CZMA outlines two national programs for coastal management, the National Coastal Zone Management Program 

(CZMP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). State/tribe participation in the CZMA is 

voluntary, but participation makes federal financial assistance available to any coastal state, tribe, or territory willing to 

develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management program. Upon certification of a state’s coastal 

management program, the CZMA gives state coastal management agencies regulatory control over all federal activities 

and federally licensed, permitted or assisted activities, wherever they may occur within coastal zone boundaries if the 

activity affects coastal resources (CCC, 2012).

Section 307, also known as the federal consistency provision, is a requirement where federal agency activities (activities 

and development projects performed, authorized or funded by a federal agency) that have reasonably foreseeable 

effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the enforceable policies of a coastal state’s federally approved coastal management program.

Additionally, federal license or permit activities and federal financial assistance activities that have reasonably 

foreseeable coastal effects must be fully consistent with the enforceable policies of state coastal management 

programs. A lead state agency performs federal consistency reviews (usually the same agency that implements or 

coordinates the state’s federally approved coastal management program). As such the enforceable policies outlined in 

Chapter 3 of the CCA are the basis for federal coastal consistency certification. At the federal level, the Office of OCRM 

interprets the CZMA and oversees the application of federal consistency (NOAA, 2013).

3.9.1.2 State

California Coastal Act 

The CCA of 1976 permanently established the CCC and replaced Proposition 20, an initiative passed in 1972. The 

CCC was initially established by the Proposition 20 initiative as an interim agency to prepare planning documents within 

a four-year period. By passing the CCA of 1976 the State Legislature created the mandate for preparation of LCP. The 

CCA includes specific policies that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor 

accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development 

design, power plants, ports, and public works.

The CCC plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly 

defined by the CCA to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the 

intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from 

either the CCC or the local government. Along with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the 

California Coastal Conservancy, the CCC is one of California’s three designated coastal management agencies for the 

purpose of administering the CZMA (CCC, 2012). 

3.9.1.3 Regional

North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program

The North Coast Corridor (NCC) PWP/TREP, jointly prepared by SANDAG and Caltrans in collaboration with the CCC, 

local cities, resource agencies, and the public, is a single integrated document that establishes a framework for 

comprehensively planning, reviewing, and permitting of the NCC’s transportation, community, and resource 

enhancement projects. The PWP/TREP lays out a blueprint for implementing a 40-year program of rail, highway, transit, 

bicycle, pedestrian, and coastal resource improvements that span 27 miles of the Northern San Diego County coastline 

from La Jolla to Oceanside. It allows these improvements to be analyzed as an integrated system, with the goal of 

optimizing the suite of improvements so that transportation goals are met in a manner that maintains and enhances 

public access to coastal resources and recreational facilities, and sensitive coastal resources are protected and 

enhances wherever feasible. The PWP/TREP also serves as the regulatory document that provides a comprehensive 

mechanism for conducting a federal consistency review under the CZMA for the entire NCC project (SANDAG, 2013b).

Consistent with the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, the NCC PWP/TREP project improvements would create 

a balanced multimodal system and enhanced coastal environment through three main components:

• Significant rail and highway infrastructure improvements;

• Enhanced and newly established bicycle and pedestrian coastal access routes; and

• Preserved, restored, and enhanced sensitive coastal habitat through significant water quality, lagoon, and 

natural habitat improvements.

The PWP/TREP would improve conditions for coastal resources by enhancing public transit and non-motorized 

transportation alternatives to reduce energy consumption and air emissions, and would implement improvements to 

the existing transportation system that eliminate existing impediments and enhance coastal access opportunities for 

residents and visitors. Further, the PWP/TREP improvements will foster healthy and sustainable coastal communities 

by:

• Limiting traffic congestion on local streets;

• Minimizing energy consumption and air and GHG emissions related to travel; and

• Improving the transportation system in a way that supports the concept of Smart Growth as a means of 

accommodating anticipated future growth in the NCC.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP)

Through the SANDAG’s RCP, the San Diego region has established an incentivized planning framework for 

coordinated regional housing, land use, transportation, and sustainability planning (SANDAG, 2004). The RCP is the 

foundation of integrating land use, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies in a 

regional smart growth framework. It provides a regional vision and a broad context in which local and regional 

decisions can be made to foster a healthy environment and economy, and a high quality of life for all San Diegans.

The RCP is based on three goals and objectives:

• Improving connections between land use and transportation plans using smart growth principles;

• Using land use and transportation plans to guide other decisions regarding environmental and public facility 

investments; and

• Focusing on collaboration and the use of incentives to achieve regional goals and objectives. 

The Urban Form and Transportation section of the RCP outlines four regional goals:

• Focus future population and job growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers 

and public facilities to preserve open space and to use existing urban infrastructure more efficiently;

• Create safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant communities that are designed and built to be accessible to people 

of all abilities;

• Integrate the development of land use and transportation, recognizing their interdependence; and

• Develop a flexible, sustainable, and well-integrated transportation system that focuses on moving people and 

goods - not just vehicles.

San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (The Regional Plan)

The Regional Plan presents a transportation system designed to maximize transit enhancements, integrate biking and 

walking elements, and promote programs to reduce demand and increase efficiency (SANDAG, 2015a). The Regional 

Plan Final EIR (SANDAG, 2015b) generally addresses regional issues related to the LOSSAN corridor rail line doubletrack projects. The Regional Plan Chapter 2—A Strategy for Sustainability: Smart Growth and environmental protection 

through transportation choices—includes the components of the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by SB 

375.

Multiple Habitat Conservation Program

The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) is a comprehensive conservation planning process that addresses 

the needs of multiple plant and animal species in northwestern San Diego County (SANDAG, 2013a). The MHCP

encompasses the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside (as well as Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and 

Vista). Its goal is to conserve approximately 19,000 acres of habitat, of which roughly 8,800 acres (46 percent) are 

already in public ownership and contribute toward the habitat preserve system for the protection of more than 80 rare, 

threatened, or endangered species.

The MHCP Subregional Plan and Final EIS/EIR were adopted and certified by the SANDAG Board of Directors on 

March 28, 2003. Subarea plans for the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside have been prepared and adopted by their 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

respective City Councils. Implementing agreements with the CDFW and USFWS have been signed and incidental take 

permits can be issued. 

Coordinated through SANDAG, the MHCP is one of three subregional habitat conservation planning programs in the 

region that, together, will contribute to a coordinated preserve system for the San Diego region and Southern California. 

With the preserve area defined in advance of development, builders will know where new homes, employment, and 

commercial centers can be placed. When completed, the habitat preservation areas will serve as a key component of 

the region’s smart growth efforts by preserving habitat and open space and by directing forecasted growth into 

appropriate areas.

3.9.1.4 Local

City of Carlsbad General Plan

As required by State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of Carlsbad has developed a “comprehensive, long-term plan 

for the physical development of the City, and of any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” 

(State of California, 2000). The City must make a formal finding that each of the following is consistent with the general 

plan before it is approved: zoning; subdivision maps; building and housing regulations; master plans and specific plans; 

capital improvements; conditional use permits; and open space and parks dedications. The Carlsbad General Plan 

contains the seven mandatory general plan elements, with the addition of parks and recreation, and contains within 

each element maps, figures, policy statements, over-arching goals, more specific objectives, implementing programs, 

and in some instances development standards (City of Carlsbad, 2013).

The City of Carlsbad General Plan designation for the vicinity of the project corridor is “Residential”, “Commercial”, 

“Industrial”, “Public Facilities and Utilities”, and “Parks and Recreation”. The existing railroad ROW lies within a 

designated “Transportation Corridor”. In addition to these designations, portions of the project corridor lie within the 

following special overlay zones/districts: “Beach Area Overlay Zone”; “Coastal Zone”; and the “Village Area”, which is 

regulated by the Carlsbad Village Master Plan.

The Beach Area Overlay Zone provides supplementary regulations for development within designated beach areas to 

ensure that development will be compatible with surrounding developments, both existing and proposed, in the beach 

area. Additionally, it provides for adequate parking as needed by residential projects and ensures that adequate public 

facilities will exist to serve the beach area. Further, it protects the unique mix of residential development and aesthetic 

quality of the area.

Almost every type of development proposed in the Coastal Zone, from the removal of vegetation to the construction of 

master planned communities requires the approval of a CDP in addition to any other permits or entitlements. The land 

use policies, programs and regulations of the relevant LCP (discussed below) shall be referred to in addition to the 

General Plan, the Municipal Code and other pertinent regulations for guiding land use and development within the 

Coastal Zone.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual

The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual (City of Carlsbad, 2012) is the City of Carlsbad’s official statement 

of design, zoning and land use, and long-range development strategy policy in order to create a strong identity, revitalize 

the area, enhance the economic potential, and establish specific site development standards for the Village.

Additionally, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, together with the implementing ordinances and Manual of 

Policies and Procedures serves as the LCP for the Carlsbad Village Area segment of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone 

pursuant to the requirements of the CCA.

The intent of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is to preserve the Village character of the area by creating a 

pedestrian scale environment of specialty shops, services, and restaurants complemented by residential and mixeduse development. It sets forth the zoning and allowed land uses for the Village, which is a special review area. It also 

sets forth the standards and criteria by which development shall proceed in the Village Area, as well as serves as a 

Master Plan for the Village Area and implements, and is consistent with, the General Plan. The General Plan references 

the Village Master Plan for details on development and implementation strategies within the Village Area to meet the 

goals and objectives of the General Plan for the Village Area.

Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Zoning)

Chapter 21 (Zoning) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code is an official, adopted land-use plan for the City established 

to serve the public health, safety and general welfare, and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting 

from an orderly planned use of land resources. The existing zoning within the quarter-mile affected environment for the 

Proposed Action is General Commercial, Commercial-Tourist, One-Family Residential, Multiple-Family Residential, 

Residential-Agricultural, Residential Density-Multiple, Open Space, Transportation Corridor, and Village Review.

Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan

The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (City of Carlsbad, 2004) is part of a regional planning effort to 

create an interconnected system of open space lands that will function at the ecosystem level. The HMP constitutes 

the City’s subarea (city-specific) plan within the MHCP Subregional Plan for north coastal San Diego County. The HMP 

for the City of Carlsbad proposes a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City of Carlsbad, in cooperation 

with federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources 

within the City of Carlsbad while allowing for additional development consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s General 

Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the HMP is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization 

for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other 

activities, which are consistent with the HMP. These permits would be issued under the ESA, the California Endangered 

Species Act (CESA), and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. The overall goal of the 

HMP is to contribute to regional biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or sensitive biological resources throughout 

the City of Carlsbad and the larger region while allowing public and private development to occur consistent with the 

Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan.

City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program 

The CCA requires that its policies and provisions be implemented through preparation of an LCP. LCP is defined as “a 

local government’s (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coast 

resources area, other implementing actions which when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

provisions and policies of, this division at the local level” (City of Carlsbad, 2010). Section 30500 of the CCA states that 

“each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the Coastal Zone shall prepare an LCP for that portion of the 

Coastal Zone within its jurisdiction,” and “the precise content of each local coastal program shall be determined by the 

local government, consistent with Section 30501, in full consultation with the commission and with full public 

participation” (California Public Resources Code, 2013). Once the CCC has certified an LCP, CDP issuance authority 

is typically delegated to the appropriate local government, however the CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over 

certain specified lands (such as tidelands and public trust lands). Development within the Coastal Zone may not 

commence until a CDP has been issued (CCC, 2012). 

Approximately one-third of the City of Carlsbad is located within the Coastal Zone. Carlsbad’s coastal zone is divided 

into six segments and is regulated by two separate LCPs. The Proposed Action only passes through two of the six 

segments: the Mello II segment and the Village segment. The Mello II segment is within the boundaries of the City of 

Carlsbad LCP. The Village segment is within the boundaries of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan, which serves as the 

segment’s LCP. 

City of Oceanside General Plan

As required by State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of Oceanside has developed a “comprehensive, long-term plan 

for the physical development of the City of Oceanside, and of any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to 

its planning” (State of California, 2000). For the City of Oceanside, the General Plan is “the primary source of longrange planning and policy direction that will be used to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the City” 

(City of Oceanside, 2002). To address future growth and development, the General Plan includes goals, objectives, 

policies, and plans, which are used to guide future land use and development decisions. Consequently, the Zoning 

Ordinance, Specific Plans, and individual public and private development proposals must be consistent with the General 

Plan goals, objectives, policies, and standards. The Oceanside General Plan contains ten elements, with Community 

Facilities, Hazardous Waste Management, and Military Reservation Elements in addition to the State mandated seven 

elements.

The City of Oceanside General Plan designation for the project corridor is “Residential”, “Commercial”, and “Parks and 

Recreation”. In addition to these designations, the project corridor lies within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone 

requires that almost every type of development proposed, from the removal of vegetation to the construction of master 

planned communities requires the approval of a CDP in addition to any other permits or entitlements. The land use 

policies, programs and regulations of the relevant LCP (discussed below) shall be referred to in addition to the General 

Plan, the Municipal Code and other pertinent regulations for guiding land use and development within the Coastal Zone.

Oceanside Zoning Ordinance

The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Oceanside was established to protect and promote the public health, safety, and 

general welfare of its residents, as well as to implement the City of Oceanside’s General Plan. It provides a specific 

guide for the physical development of the City of Oceanside. The existing zoning within the quarter-mile affected 

environment for the Proposed Action is Limited Commercial, Commercial Professional, Commercial Recreation, Visitor 

Commercial, Open Space, Public and Semipublic, Urban High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Single 

Family Residential, and Residential Tourist.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan

The City of Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) is part of a regional planning effort to create an 

interconnected system of open space lands that will function at the ecosystem level. The SHCP constitutes the City of 

Oceanside’s subarea (City-specific) plan within the MHCP Subregional Plan for north coastal San Diego County. 

The Oceanside SHCP comprehensively addresses how the City of Oceanside will conserve natural biotic communities 

and sensitive plant and wildlife species pursuant to the California NCCP Act and ESA (City of Oceanside, 2010). It is a 

NCCP and a HCP pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA (as amended). The SHCP is intended to lead to citywide 

permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, 

public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the SHCP. The City of Oceanside, in turn, may then 

authorize the taking of natural habitats or associated species by public or private projects within its jurisdiction, as long

as those biological resources are conserved and managed by the SHCP and the projects are consistent with and 

covered by the provisions of the SHCP.

City of Oceanside Local Coastal Program

The CCA requires that its policies and provisions be implemented through preparation of an LCP. LCP is defined as “a 

local government’s (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coast 

resources area, other implementing actions which when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the 

provisions and policies of, this division at the local level” (City of Oceanside, 1985). Section 30500 of the CCA states: 

“each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the Coastal Zone shall prepare a LCP for that portion of the 

Coastal Zone within its jurisdiction,” and “the precise content of each LCP shall be determined by the local government, 

consistent with Section 30501, in full consultation with the commission and with full public participation” (California 

Public Resources Code, 2013). Once the CCC has certified an LCP, CDP issuance authority is typically delegated to 

the appropriate local government, however the CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands 

(such as tidelands and public trust lands). Development within the coastal zone may not commence until a CDP has 

been issued (CCC, 2012). 

The northern portion of the Proposed Action passes through the City of Oceanside coastal zone and is within the 

boundaries of the City of Oceanside LCP. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment

As shown on Figure 3.9-1, existing land uses at the project site consist primarily of single-family and multi-family 

residential adjacent to the railroad ROW within the Oceanside portion. Around the Buena Vista Lagoon, land is 

preserved as open space. There is a greater mix of land uses surrounding the railroad ROW within the Carlsbad portion, 

including commercial/office, multi-family residential, the recreational fields for the Army and Navy Academy, the 

Carlsbad Village Station and parking lot.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences

3.9.3.1 Proposed Action

A. Local Coastal Programs

City of Carlsbad

The Proposed Action passes through a small portion of the Mello II segment, and is primarily located within the Buena 

Vista Lagoon adjacent to the existing single-track bridge. In addition, the Proposed Action is located within previously 

disturbed/developed lands, as it lies within the existing railroad ROW. Sensitive vegetation is located in the northern 

portion of the project area where the proposed tracks would cross the lagoon. Improvements within the lagoon would 

impact sensitive habitat which include disturbed coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, 

disturbed southern willow scrub and estuarine (SANDAG, 2013a). The Proposed Action would demonstrate Coastal 

Consistency through a Federal Coastal Consistency Certification. It is expected that the Coastal Commission would 

consider the City of Carlsbad’s LCP during the Proposed Action’s Federal Coastal Consistency Certification hearing

that would be required for a future Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. Consistency with the Village segment 

LCP/CZMP is discussed in the Land Use Technical Report (Appendix J of this EA).

City of Oceanside

The Proposed Action passes through a small portion of the City of Oceanside and only a small portion of the coastal 

zone. It is located within the Buena Vista Lagoon adjacent to the existing single-track bridge and extends north to 

Cassidy Street. In addition, the Proposed Action is located within previously disturbed/developed lands, as it lies within 

the existing railroad ROW. Sensitive vegetation is located in the northern portion of the project area where the proposed 

tracks would cross the existing Buena Vista Lagoon. Improvements within the lagoon would impact sensitive habitat 

which includes disturbed coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, disturbed southern willow 

scrub and estuarine (SANDAG, 2013a). The Proposed Action would demonstrate Federal Coastal Consistency through 

a Coastal Consistency Certification. It is expected that the Coastal Commission would consider the City of Oceanside’s 

LCP during the Proposed Action’s Coastal Consistency Certification hearing that would be required for a future Clean 

Water Act Section 404 permit.

B. City of Carlsbad General Plan

The Proposed Action is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to the 

Proposed Action.

C. Carlsbad Village Master Plan

The Proposed Action is consistent with all goals of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan. Portions of the Carlsbad Village 

Center, Residential Support, and Service Commercial Support Land Use Districts, which are located within the Village 

Area, are also located within the Transportation Corridor. For those properties located both within the Village Area and 

the Transportation Corridor, the following applicable permitted land uses include: Light-Rail Stations, Private or Public 

Parking Lots, Railroad Tracks, and Passive Open Space. According to the Carlsbad Village Master Plan, the primary 

use of the Transportation Corridor shall be for transportation facilities and improvements that provide rail and transit 

services and support facilities. The permitted, provisional, and accessory land uses allowed in Land Use Districts 1, 4 

and 6, as set forth in the land use matrix of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan will also be allowed on the properties 
FIGURE

Existing Land Use 3.9-1

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: Esri, 2014; SanGIS, 2014; T.Y. Lin, 2013 9/12/16

I-5 SB

I-5 NB

PIO PICO DR

CARLSBAD BL

MADISON ST

STATE ST

S PACIFIC ST

S COAST HY

OAK AV

GRAND AV

OCEAN ST

JEFFERSON ST

BROADWAY

ROOSEVELT ST

PACIFIC TR

ALLEY

HARDING ST

S MYERS ST

CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

I-5 RA

S TREMONT ST

VISTA WY

CHESTNUT AV

PINE AV

HIGHLAND DR

S FREEMAN ST

ALVARADO ST

KELLY ST

S DITMAR ST

CASSIDY ST

HOPE AV

TYLER ST

EATON ST

ADAMS ST

VALLEY ST

S NEVADA ST

WASHINGTON ST

EUREKA PL

BEECH AV

BASSWOOD AV

HOME AV

WHALEY ST

ELMWOOD ST

ST MALO BEACH

BUENA VISTA WY

S HORNE ST

ACACIA AV

MAGNOLIA AV

KNOWLES AV

LAS FLORES DR

GARFIELD ST

MORSE ST

ANCHOR WY

CYNTHIA LN

DAVIS AV

LAGUNA DR

CHRISTIANSEN WY

TUTTLE ST

VILLAGE DR

PACIFIC AV

WALNUT AV

JAMES DR

BUENA PL

CYPRESS AV

MC KINLEY ST

STRATFORD LN

MAPLE AV

PALM AV

HIBISCUS CR

NAUTICAL DR

NEWLAND CT

PRIVATE DY

LINCOLN ST

PRIVATE RD

MTN VIEW DR

PRIVATE DR

AVOCADO LN

CAMELLIA PL

ARBUCKLE PL

GREGORY DR

KREMEYER CR

LEWIS LN

VILLAGE CR

CABRILLO PL

DAVIS PL

PRIVATE DY

KNOWLES AV

ALLEY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

CHESTNUT AV

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PINE AV

ALLEY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

JAMES DR

ALLEY

I-5 RA

ALLEY

OAK AV

LAGUNA DR

PRIVATE DY

PINE AV

JEFFERSON ST

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE DY

BEECH AV

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DR

PRIVATE DY

OAK AV

PRIVATE DY

WALNUT AV

MORSE ST

PRIVATE RD

EATON ST

I-5 RA

PALM AV

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

VISTA WY

KELLY ST

GARFIELD ST

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

PRIVATE RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,

and the GIS User Community ±

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Feet

CITY OF CARLSBAD

CITY OF OCEANSIDE

Permanent Impact Area

Temporary Impact Area

California Coastal Zone Boundary

1⁄4-Mile Land Use Study Area

Land Use

RESIDENTIAL

Spaced Rural Residential

Single Family Detached

Single Family Attached

Mobile Homes

Multiple Family

COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE

Shopping Centers

Commercial and Office

INDUSTRIAL

Heavy Industry

Light Industry

Extractive Industry

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES

Transportation, Communications, Utilities

Education

Institutions

Military

PARKS AND RECREATION

Recreation

Open Space Parks

AGRICULTURE

Intensive Agriculture

Extensive Agriculture

UNDEVELOPED

Undeveloped

Water

Road Rights of Way

Railroad Rights of Way

3.9-9
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

located within the corresponding and adjacent portions of the Transportation Corridor and north of Carlsbad Village 

Drive. The Proposed Action is consistent with the goals of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan that are applicable to the 

Proposed Action.

D. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Zoning)

The Proposed Action lies within multiple City of Carlsbad zoning districts (see Section 3.9.1.4 of this EA). The project 

occurs entirely within the existing railroad ROW presently located in a Transportation Corridor zone. Applicable 

permitted uses within a Transportation Corridor zone include light-rail transit related facilities, railroad tracks and related 

facilities, and signs subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.41 of the Municipal Code. The Proposed Action is consistent 

with City of Carlsbad zoning.

E. Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan

The Proposed Action is consistent with the objectives of the Carlsbad HMP. Although the Proposed Action would result 

in adverse impacts to biological resources, including rare and sensitive habitats, mitigation would be required to ensure 

that the Proposed Action would not result in a net loss of wetland habitat. The Proposed Action would implement the 

objectives of the Carlsbad HMP by avoiding impacts to habitat to the extent practicable, minimizing unavoidable 

impacts, and mitigating any impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. It is expected that the USFWS consultation 

would result in the adoption of conservation measures that are generally consistent with the HMP. Section 3.3 of this 

EA contains details on the conservation measures proposed.

F. City of Oceanside General Plan

The Proposed Action is consistent with the City of Oceanside General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to 

the Proposed Action.

G. Oceanside Zoning Ordinance

The Proposed Action lies within multiple City of Oceanside zoning districts (see Section 3.9.1.4 of this EA). Railroads 

are not specifically addressed as an allowable use within the City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance but they would be 

deemed allowable because railroads are an existing use.

H. Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan

The Proposed Action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Oceanside SHCP. Although the Proposed Action 

would result in adverse impacts to biological resources, including ecological communities or key wildlife corridors and 

habitat linkages, mitigation would be required to ensure that the Proposed Action would not result in a net loss of 

wetland habitat. The Proposed Action would implement the objectives of the Oceanside SHCP by avoiding impacts to 

habitat to the extent practicable, minimizing unavoidable impacts, and mitigating any impacts that cannot be avoided 

or minimized. Section 3.3 of this EA contains details on the conservation measures proposed.

I. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan

The Proposed Action is an element of the LOSSAN Corridor project identified in The Regional Plan. Therefore, 

implementation of the Proposed Action would meet the goals and objectives of The Regional Plan without conflict.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.9-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

J. Property Acquisitions

There are no property acquisitions associated with the Proposed Action. All work will occur within the existing ROW.

Therefore, there are no adverse impacts associated with property acquisitions.

3.9.3.2 No Action Alternative

Because no development would occur under the No Action Alternative, there is no impact associated with a LCP, 

General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or HCP for Oceanside or Carlsbad with the implementation of the No Action 

Alternative. However, the No Action Alternative is not consistent with the goals and objectives of The Regional Plan 

because it does not implement the double track from MP 224.8 in Carlsbad to MP 225.9 in Oceanside. Therefore, the 

No Action Alternative would conflict with The Regional Plan.

3.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plans and HCPs of the cities of Carlsbad 

and Oceanside and does not involve property acquisitions. Areas subject to temporary biological impacts would be 

revegetated and fully restored as discussed in Section 3.3 of this EA. As such, the Proposed Action balances the 

regional need for more efficient passenger and freight rail service along the LOSSAN corridor with the communities’ 

desire to preserve wildlife habitat. 

3.9.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Since the implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any anticipated land use impacts, no mitigation 

measures are required and therefore there would be no impacts from mitigation implementation.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.10 Noise and Vibration

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Draft Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the 

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project prepared by ATS Consulting (ATS Consulting, 2014). The Draft 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is provided as Appendix K of this EA.

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

Noise and vibration impacts for this project are based on the criteria as defined in the FRA Office of Railroad Policy 

and Development, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Document 

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15, September 2012 (FRA 2012) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, Document FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 (FTA 2006). The FRA provides guidelines for 

the assessment of noise and vibration impacts in the High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment. There are also local guidelines related to potential noise impacts associated with construction at sensitive 

receiving properties, which are further discussed in Section 3.16.10 of this EA.

3.10.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration

A. Noise Criteria

The FRA noise impact criteria are based on the best available research on community response to noise. The FRA 

uses three land use categories to differentiate between areas where higher noise levels are more frequent. For 

Category 2 land uses, noise exposure is characterized using Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn), which is the energy average 

of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels 

occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Category 1 and Category 3 land uses, noise exposure is 

characterized using the maximum hourly Leq, which is an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified 

period. The one-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq[h]), for example, is the energy average of A-weighted 

sound levels occurring during a one-hour period. One hour is the normal (default) assumed time period for Leq unless 

stated otherwise. The basic concept of the FRA noise impact criteria is that more project noise is allowed in areas 

where existing noise is higher, but that the decibel increase in total noise exposure (the decibel sum of existing noise 

and project noise) decreases as existing noise increases. Table 3.10-1 lists the three land use categories along with 

the applicable noise metric for each category. The allowable increase in cumulative noise levels are shown in Figure 

3.10-1. 

B. Vibration Criteria

The FRA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria are based on land use and train frequency, and are shown in 

Table 3.10-2. The project area would be characterized as experiencing occasional events today, and frequent events 

by the year 2030. The FRA uses separate criteria for groundborne noise: the “rumble” that can be radiated from the 

motion of room surfaces in buildings due to groundborne vibration. Although expressed in dBA, which emphasizes the 

more audible middle and high frequencies, the criteria are set significantly lower than for airborne noise to account for 

the annoying low-frequency character of groundborne noise. For the Proposed Action, groundborne noise criteria are 

applied only to buildings that have sensitive interior spaces that are well insulated from exterior noise. 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10-1

FRA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics

Land Use 

Category

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor 

Leq(h)a

A tract of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. This 

category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as outdoor 

amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as national historic landmarks with 

significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings in which people sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

3 Outdoor 

Leq(h)a

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes 

schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such 

activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for 

meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, 

and recreational facilities can be considered to be in this category. Certain historical 

sites and parks also are included.

Note: a Leq for the noisiest hour of rail-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. Source: FRA, 2012.

Figure 3.10-1

Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels for

Land Use Categories 1 and 2

Source: FTA, 2006.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10-2

FRA Vibration Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)

Groundborne Noise Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro-Pascals)

Frequent 

Eventsa

Occasional 

Events b

Infrequent 

Eventsc

Frequent 

Eventsa

Occasional 

Events b

Infrequent 

Eventsc

Category 1. Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations. 65 VdBd 65 VdBd 65 VdBd N/Ae N/Ae N/Ae

Category 2. Residences and buildings 

where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3. Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Source: FRA, 2012.

Notes: a Frequent events are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day per day. b Occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 events of the same kind per day per day.

c Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events of the same kind per day. d VDB=Vibration decibels. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. 

Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels 

in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.

e Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundborne noise.

3.10.1.2 City of Carlsbad Residential Exterior Noise Standard

It is the policy of the City of Carlsbad that 60 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the exterior noise level 

to which residential units must be mitigated, except that for areas impacted by McClellan Palomar Airport shall be 

mitigated to 65 dBA CNEL. CNEL is the 24 hour A-weighted average for sound, with corrections for evening and 

nighttime hours. The corrections require an addition of 5 decibels to sound levels in the evening hours between 7 p.m. 

and 10 p.m. and 10 decibels to sound levels at nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made 

to account for the increased sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours when sound appears louder. The 

aforementioned FRA standards apply to train noise.

3.10.2 Affected Environment

The Proposed Action occurs entirely within the existing railroad ROW, which currently generates noise and vibration 

from existing train operations. The primary component of wayside noise from passenger and freight train operations is 

the diesel propulsion engine and the wheel/rail noise. Secondary sources, such as vehicle air-conditioning and other 

ancillary equipment, would sometimes be audible but not significant sources of noise. The existing daily service level 

volumes for train operations from Oceanside to San Diego for 2012 include 22 inter-city trains (Amtrak), 22 commuter 

trains (Coaster), and six freight trains (BNSF) for a total daily volume of 50 train trips (SANDAG, 2013d).

3.10.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses 

Land use in the project area includes single- and multi-family dwelling units, commercial and retail uses. The northern 

part of the project is in Oceanside. This area begins at Cassidy Street and extends south to Pacific Street on both side 

of the railroad ROW. As the alignment extends south over the Buena Vista Lagoon to the City of Carlsbad the land use 

includes both residential and commercial uses. Within the Village of Carlsbad there are single- and multi-family 

residential buildings that are located next to retail and commercial buildings. The historic Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is 

particularly sensitive to vibration effects.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.10.2.2 Sources of Operational Noise

All existing and future trains through at least the year 2030 will be diesel-powered. Operational noise is generated by 

train vehicles in motion. Vehicle propulsion units generate: (1) diesel-engine exhaust noise, (2) air-turbulence noise 

generated by cooling fans, and (3) gear noise. Additional noise of motion is generated by the interaction of wheels with 

their running surfaces. The interaction of steel wheels and rails generates three types of noise: (1) rolling noise due to 

continuous rolling contact, (2) impact noise when a wheel encounters a discontinuity in the running surface, such as a 

rail joint, turnout or crossover, and (3) squeal generated by friction on tight curves (FTA, 2006).

Vehicle speed also plays a factor in sound level strength. At low speeds, the locomotive exhaust noise dominates. As 

speed increases, wheel-rail noise becomes the dominant noise source. Noise is also generated by trains when they 

are stationary. Auxiliary equipment, such as cooling fans on motors, radiator fans, hydraulic, pneumatic and airconditioning pumps, often continue to run when vehicles are stationary (FTA, 2006).

Trains are equipped with horns and bells for use in emergency situations and as a general audible warning to track 

workers and trespassers within the ROW as well as to pedestrians and motor vehicles at highway grade crossings.

Horns and bells on the moving trains, combined with stationary bells at grade crossings can generate noise levels 

considered to be extremely annoying to nearby residents (FTA, 2006). Table 3.10-3 summarizes sources of operational 

noise for commuter rail and freight operations.

Table 3.10-3

Sources of Operational Noise

Vehicle or Facility Dominant Components Comments

Passenger and Freight 

Trains

Diesel exhaust On diesel-hauled trains

Cooling fans On diesel-powered trains

Wheel/rail interaction Depends on condition of wheels and rails

Horns and crossing gate bells At grade crossings

In general, Noise is usually dominated by locomotives and 

Horns at grade crossings

Source: FTA, 2006.

3.10.2.3 Existing Noise/Vibration Levels

A. 24-Hour Noise Measurements

The ambient noise measurements taken for the Proposed Action consisted of 24-hour, unattended noise 

measurements at four locations, Sites LT-1 through LT-4. The 24-hour measurements are in residential neighborhoods 

where the noise impact criteria are based on Ldn over a 24-hour period. The 24-hour noise measurements conducted 

at Sites LT-1 through LT-4 are presented in Table 3.10-4 for each monitoring location, the approximate distance of that 

location from the centerline of the middle track, the land use type, the type of measurement, and the measured noise 

level at that location.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10-4

Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurements

Site Location Type of Land 

Use

Dist. To Track 

Centerline (feet) Start Date Start Time Sound Level (dBA)

Leq(day) Leq(night) Ldn

LT-1 1906 Broadway Street MFR 195 7/31/2013 10:37 a.m. 67 60 68

LT-2 110 Vista Way SFR 180 7/31/2013 10:19 a.m. 61 57 64

LT-3 270 Pacific Avenue MFR 275 8/1/2013 11:50 a.m. 56 52 60

LT-4 393 Oak Street SFR 100 8/1/2013 12:15 p.m. 67 60 69

Notes: MFR – Multi-Family Residence 

SFR – Single-Family Residence 

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.

B. Train Passby Measurements

The noise and vibration from Amtrak, Coaster, and BNSF freight trains were measured at five locations, Sites M1 

through M5. The noise measurements included train horns and at grade crossing bells. The results were used to define 

the reference noise and vibration levels used as the basis of the future build predictions. The noise and vibration 

predictions for the Proposed Action are based on existing passby noise and vibration levels of Amtrak, Coaster, and 

freight trains measured at five locations on ballast and tie track at Sites M1 through M5. The results of these 

measurements are presented in Table 3.10-5 as the maximum noise level (Lmax) and maximum vibration level for the 

different train passbys. The variation in the train noise and vibration is a function of distance to the track and train 

speed.

Table 3.10-5

Summary of Train Passby Measurements

Site

Measurement Site

Distance to 

Near Track 

Centerline 

(feet)

Noise Level - Lmax (dBA) Vibration Level – Lmax (VdB)

Amtrak Coaster Freight Amtrak Coaster Freight

M1 117 Eaton Street

65 92 85 --- 76.2 71.4 ---

105 83 78 --- 71.3 67.3 ---

M2 302 Vista Way

190 82 87 --- 62.0 56.9 ---

50 90 --- 91 73.0 --- 75.9

100 85 86 67.6 --- 68.9

M3 385 Beech Avenue

68 100 84 --- 72.7 53.7 ---

140 95 77 --- 63.2 47.4 ---

M4 395 Carlsbad Village Drive 135 100 92 --- 65.2 58.5 ---

M5 1741 S. Myers Street 170 96 101 --- 64.7 61.8 ---

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences

Noise and vibration impacts for the Proposed Action are based on the criteria as defined in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, FRA High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA 2012).
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action

Train Noise Impacts

The primary component of wayside noise from passenger and freight train operations is the diesel propulsion engine 

and the wheel/rail noise. Secondary sources, such as vehicle air-conditioning and other ancillary equipment, would 

sometimes be audible, but are not expected to be significant factors. 

The projection of wayside noise from passenger and freight train operations was carried out using the noise 

measurements conducted of existing train operations. As previously mentioned, these measurements were conducted 

at five residential locations along the project alignment, some of which were near grade crossings to capture the sound 

of the train horns and grade crossing bells. The measurements were attended to note down the train passby details 

such as speed, direction, number of locomotives and cars. The future daily operations are presented in Table 3.10-6. 

The future train speeds with implementation of the Proposed Action are assumed to be the same as the existing train 

speeds. 

Table 3.10-6

Daily Service Level Assumptions for Train Operations 

(Oceanside to San Diego)

Operator 2012 Volume 2020 Volume 2025 Volume 2030 Volume Growth (2012-2030)

Amtrak 22 26 32 36 14

Coaster 22 30 36 54 32

BNSF Freight 6 11 11 11 5

Total 50 67 79 101 51

Source: SANDAG, 2013d.

Noise and vibration land uses have been grouped into clusters that are represented by the four noise monitoring 

locations. Each cluster represents several residences in the same location. The rail tracks would be approximately the 

same distance from each building in a cluster and train speeds and other operational parameters are the same for 

sensitive receivers in the cluster. The locations of the clusters and buildings included in each cluster are shown in 

Figure 3.10-2 through Figure 3.10-4. The noise analysis considers the project-related change in train trips through the 

project area. Train trips are predicted to increase to 67 per day by the year 2020. This number of trains is approximately 

the capacity of the single-track configuration. With implementation of the Proposed Action and other double track 

projects in the 2013 Infrastructure Development Plan, it is expected that train traffic would increase to 101 trips per day 

by the year 2030. Noise predictions were developed for each land use cluster according to the methods described 

above and are presented in Table 3.10-7.

As shown in Table 3.10-7, the increase in noise levels associated with implementation of the Proposed Action would 

be below the FRA thresholds for the allowable increase in cumulative noise levels and would not result in any moderate 

or severe noise impacts. Train noise would increase at some locations primarily due to the forecast increase in train 

movements within the corridor. Another factor would be that the second track would move some train movements closer 

to some noise receptors. At Clusters R3, R5, R7, R8, R9, R12, R13, and R14, the Proposed Action would result in 

lower train noise when compared to the 2020 Future No-Build noise levels. Reduced train noise would be attributable 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

primarily to the project-related elimination of existing crossovers. Another factor would be that the second track would 

move some train movements further from some noise receptors. As such, the proposed 2030 Project noise levels would 

not exceed the FRA impact thresholds when compared to the 2020 No-build noise levels. Therefore, implementation 

of the Proposed Action would not result in any moderate or severe noise impacts.

Vibration Impacts

The potential vibration impact from rail operations was assessed based on the increase in the future train operations 

with the Proposed Action as compared to the existing conditions. If train operations are 3 Vibration Decibels (VdB) or 

higher than the existing vibration levels, an adverse impact would occur.

As previously mentioned, vibration measurements were conducted at five sites along the corridor at residences within 

close proximity to the existing tracks. These measured vibration levels were adjusted based on change in distance to 

determine the future vibration levels with the Proposed Action. The speed of the future train passbys is assumed to be 

the same as the existing train passbys. 

Vibration predictions were developed for each land use cluster according to the methods described above and are 

presented in Table 3.10-9. At some locations, there would be an increase in vibration levels with implementation of the 

Proposed Action in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 VdB. At other locations, there is either no change or a decrease in vibration 

levels in the range of 0.4 to 10.3 VdB. These changes are due to the change in distance between the proposed double 

track and the existing residences. The largest decrease in vibration levels would occur at Clusters R7, R8, R12, R13, 

and R14 where existing crossover tracks would be removed. The vibration levels at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot site 

would result in no change with operation of the Proposed Action.

Since the vibration levels provided in Table 3.10-8 do not exceed the existing levels by the FRA threshold of 3 VdB or 

more at any of the residential or recreational receivers, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any 

adverse long-term operational vibration impacts.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing single-track would remain for this 

segment of the LOSSAN corridor. Noise and vibration levels from train operations would remain at the same levels, as 

they exist today, and would only increase as future train volumes increase to meet future demand. Therefore, there 

would be no noise or vibration impacts under the No Action Alternative. Note, that benefits of the Proposed Action

including reduction in noise and vibration levels related to cross over removal and shifting of track away from some 

clusters would not occur under the No Action Alternative.

3.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse noise or vibration impacts to sensitive receptors 

located along the project corridor. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. For analysis of the Proposed 

Action’s noise and vibration construction impacts, please refer to Section 3.16.10 of this EA.

3.10.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

No mitigation would be required; therefore, there would be no impacts resulting from mitigation.
SOURCE: ATS Consulting, 2014 9/12/16

 Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R1 to R7 3.10-2

FIGURE

3.10-8
SOURCE: ATS Consulting, 2014 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R8 to R10 3.10-3

FIGURE

3.10-9
SOURCE: ATS Consulting, 2014 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Sensitive Land Uses: Clusters R11 to R14, I-1 3.10-4

FIGURE

3.10-10
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10-7

Train Noise Impacts

Cluster 

No.

Land 

Use Location

Number 

of

First 

Row 

Units

Closest Noise 

Measurement 

Site

Ldn (dBA)

Mod. Severe Existing 

Noise

2020 

Future 

NoBuild

2030 

Future 

Build 

with 

Project

Change 

in 2020 

No-Build 

with 

Project

FRA Impact 

Threshold a

Mod. Severe

R1 SFR/

MFR

West of ROW Cassidy to 

Kelly Streets

6 SFR

28 MFR

LT-2 64.1 66.7 66.8 0.1 1.50 3.86 No No

R2 SFR/

MFR

East of ROW Cassidy to 

Kelly Streets

6 SFR

43 MFR

LT-1 68.2 68.2 68.3 0.1 1.15 3.04 No No

R3 SFR/

MFR

West of ROW Kelly Street 

to Vista Way

6 SFR

12 MFR

LT-2 64.1 66.7 66.5 -0.2 1.50 3.86 No No

R4 SFR/

MFR

East of ROW Kelly Street 

to Vista Way

21 SFR

25 MFR

LT-1 68.2 68.2 68.5 0.3 1.15 3.04 No No

R5 SFR West of ROW Vista Way to 

Eaton Street 9 LT-2 64.1 71.4 71.0 -0.4 1.50 3.86 No No

R6 SFR/

MFR

East of ROW Vista Way to 

south of Eaton Street

10 SFR

4 MFR

LT-1 68.2 70.8 71.3 0.5 1.15 3.04 No No

R7 MFR West of ROW Eaton to 

Pacific Streets 7 LT-2 64.1 66.7 60.2 -6.5 1.50 3.86 No No

R8 SFR

Mountain View Drive 

between Ocean Street and 

Pacific Avenue

4 LT-1 68.2 68.2 62.5 -5.7 1.15 3.04 No No

R9 SFR/

MFR

West of ROW Beach to 

Christiansen Avenues

1 SFR

20 MFR

LT-3 59.5 62.1 62.0 -0.1 2.13 5.21 No No

R10 MFR West of ROW at 

Christiansen Avenue 2 LT-4 71.8 74.3 74.6 0.3 0.83 2.53 No No

R11 SFR Carlsbad Village Drive and 

Washington Street 1 LT-4 69.7 72.3 72.4 0.1 1.06 2.81 No No

R12 MFR West of ROW south of Oak 

Avenue 6 LT-4 69.7 72.3 66.3 -6.0 1.06 2.81 No No

R13 MFR

West of ROW north of Pine 

Avenue at Washington 

Street

50 LT-4 68.3 76.9 70.7 -6.2 1.15 3.02 No No

R-14 MFR

West of ROW south of 

Pine Avenue at 

Washington Street

32 LT-4 67.4 69.7 63.8 -5.9 1.21 3.18 No No

I-1b Church West of ROW Carlsbad 

Village Drive --- LT-4 71.2 71.2 71.2 0.0 2.45 5.56 No No

Notes: a FRA impact threshold for Category 2 receivers is based on the increase over the future no-build. b Cluster I-1 is a Category 3 land use. Noise Levels and FRA Impact Thresholds for this receptor are one-hour Leq (dBA). 

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.10 Noise and Vibration

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.10-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.10-8

Train Vibration Impacts

Cluster 

No.

Land 

Use Location

Number 

of First 

Row 

Units

Maximum Vibration Level (Vdb)

Impact Existing 

Vibration

Proposed 

Action

Increase 

from 

Existing to 

Proposed

R1 SFR

MFR

West of ROW Cassidy to Kelly 

Streets

6 SFR

28 MFR

68.6 68.6 0.0 No

R2 SFR

MFR

East of ROW Cassidy to Kelly 

Streets

6 SFR

43 MFR

67.8 67.8 0.0 No

R3 SFR

MFR

West of ROW Kelly Street to Vista 

Way

6 SFR

12 MFR

68.6 68.2 -0.4 No

R4 SFR

MFR

East of ROW Kelly Street to Vista 

Way

21 SFR

25 MFR

67.6 68.0 0.4 No

R5 SFR West of ROW Vista Way to Eaton 

Street 9 68.8 68.0 -0.8 No

R6 SFR

MFR

East of ROW Vista Way to south of 

Eaton Street

10 SFR

4 MFR

67.8 68.6 0.8 No

R7 SFR West of ROW Eaton to Pacific 

Streets 7 81.9 71.6 -10.3 No

R8 SFR Mountain View Drive between Ocean 

Street and Pacific Ave 4 77.8 68.6 -9.2 No

R9 SFR

MFR

West of ROW Beach to Christiansen 

Avenues

1 SFR

20 MFR

65.1 65.1 0.0 No

R10 SFR West of ROW at Christiansen 

Avenue 2 74.6 75.4 0.8 No

R11 SFR Carlsbad Village Drive and 

Washington Street 1 71.6 72.2 0.6 No

R12 SFR West of ROW south of Oak Avenue 6 81.6 71.9 -9.7 No

R13 MFR West of ROW north of Pine Avenue 

at Washington Street 50 79.5 69.5 -10.0 No

R-14 MFR West of ROW south of Pine Avenue 

at Washington Street 32 78.0 68.0 -10.0 No

I-1 Church West of ROW Carlsbad Village Drive -- 75.9 76.4 0.5 No

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.11-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

The information contained in this section is summarized from the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project 

Land Use Technical Report (BRG 2014d) and Section 4(f) Evaluation prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. (BRG, 2017), 

provided as Appendices J and L, respectively, of this EA. 

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting

3.11.1.1 Federal

Per FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, impacts to recreational opportunities must be considered 

in an environmental assessment. In addition, where land is acquired with Federal grant money there should be evidence 

of consultation with the grantor agency.

3.11.1.2 Local

The Proposed Action would occur entirely within the existing ROW between the cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad. The 

General Plans for Oceanside and Carlsbad guide development within each respective city. In addition to the General 

Plan, the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual guides development within the Village area of the City of 

Carlsbad. The City of Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad General Plans and Carlsbad Village Master Plan are 

discussed below. The Proposed Action would traverse two separate communities/cities within the project corridor.

City of Oceanside General Plan

For the City of Oceanside, the General Plan is “the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction that will 

be used to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the City” (City of Oceanside, 2002). To address future 

growth and development, the General Plan includes goals, objectives, policies, and plans, which are used to guide 

future land use and development decisions. The Oceanside General Plan contains ten elements, adding Community 

Facilities, Hazardous Waste Management, and Military Reservation Elements to the seven State mandated elements.

The following objectives and policies from the City’s Community Facilities Element are applicable to the Proposed 

Action:

1. To enrich the quality of life for all residents of Oceanside by providing adequate and accessible public park 

and recreation facilities, by providing constructive leisure opportunities, and by providing recreational 

experiences and programs that contribute to the total health of the individual while meeting the overall needs 

and desires of the community.

2. The City of Oceanside shall assist in the coordinated planning, development, and maintenance of unique 

regional amenities within and adjacent to the community. These amenities include the Buena Vista Lagoon. 

This regional recreational and open space amenity system shall be planned, developed and implemented in 

coordination with the existing system of parks throughout the City of Oceanside.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.11-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

City of Carlsbad General Plan

The Carlsbad General Plan contains the seven mandatory general plan elements, and includes an Open Space, 

Conservation and Recreation element. Each element contains maps, figures, policy statements, over-arching goals, 

more specific objectives, implementing programs, and in some instances development standards (City of Carlsbad, 

2013). City General Plan recreational areas are included on Figure 3.15-1 in this EA.

The following goals and policies from the City of Carlsbad’s Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element are 

applicable to the Proposed Action:

1. Maintain a diversified, comprehensive system of open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited 

to: parks; beaches; areas for organized sports; connecting corridors containing trails; water recreation areas 

(beaches, lagoons, lakes); unique conservation areas for nature study; and, semi-developed areas for 

camping. 

2. Offer a wide variety of recreational activities and park facilities designed to encourage educational benefits 

and active or passive participation by users of all ages and interests. 

3. Coordinate the planning of park facilities and trails with other recreation-oriented land uses such as open 

space.

4. Seek to preserve the environmental integrity, ecology, and character of special resource areas (lagoons).

Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual

The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual is the City of Carlsbad’s Official Statement of design, zoning and 

land use, and long-range development strategy policy in order to create a strong identity, revitalize the area, enhance 

the economic potential, and establish specific site development standards for the Village. It sets forth the zoning and 

allowed land uses for the Village, which is a special review area. It also sets forth the standards and criteria by which 

development shall proceed in the Village Area, as well as serves as a Master Plan for the Village Area and implements,

and is consistent with, the General Plan. The General Plan references the Village Master Plan for details on 

development and implementation strategies within the Village Area to meet the goals and objectives of the General 

Plan for the Village Area.

3.11.2 Affected Environment

The Proposed Action is located within one-half mile of eleven parks and recreation areas, including property owned by 

the City of Oceanside, the City of Carlsbad, NCTD, the State of California, and the privately-owned Army & Navy 

Academy of Carlsbad. The railroad crosses through the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which is owned and 

managed by CDFW, in association with the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation, and Buena Vista Audubon Society (City 

of Carlsbad, 2013). Directly north of the Carlsbad Boulevard bridge are two parcels owned by the City of Carlsbad (APN 

155-200-01, -13) that are adjacent to the CDFW-owned Reserve area. Although they are not officially part of the Buena 

Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve, they are zoned for open space preservation.

Table 3.11-1 on the following page lists all park and recreation areas within one half mile of the Proposed Action.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.11-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences

3.11.3.1 Parks and Recreational Impacts

Proposed Action

There is a total of approximately 174 acres of park and recreational opportunities, including open space within one-half 

mile of the Proposed Action. However, all park and recreational lands, is outside the Proposed Action’s permanent and 

temporary impact area. 

Table 3.11-1

Park and Recreation Areas Within Project Vicinity

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number (APN) Acreage Description Owner

153-011-06 10.40 Buccaneer Park (Oceanside) City of Oceanside

153-093-03 0.35 Lions Club Park (Oceanside) NCTD

155-200-08 0.94 Maxton Brown Park 

(Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

203-054-30, 203-054-31, 

203-054-32, 203-054-33 5.49 Army & Navy Academy Athletic Fields (Carlsbad)

Army & Navy 

Academy

203-142-04 2.06 Magee Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

204-310-01 16.50 Carlsbad State Beach 

(Carlsbad) State of California

204-100-05 7.10 Pine Avenue Park 

(Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

204-193-01 2.73 Chase Field (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

205-111-26, 205-111-27, 

205-111-17, 205-111-24 5.97 Holiday Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

155-200-01, 155-200-13 1.16 Designated Open Space 

(Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

155-072-14, 155-101-66, 

155-130-24, 155-130-27, 

155-130-37, 155-130-29, 

155-140-29, 155-140-33, 

155-140-34, 155-190-09, 

155-190-12, 155-221-10, 

203-010-18

120.90

Buena Vista Lagoon 

Ecological Reserve

(Carlsbad and Oceanside)

California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife

Total 173.60

Source: SanGIS, 2013

Rotary Park was a City of Carlsbad public park located southwest of the existing railroad alignment between Grand 

Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. The former park is approximately one acre and lies entirely within the existing 

railroad ROW on land owned by NCTD. This former park is not included in the City of Carlsbad’s recreational element 

of the General Plan and is thus no longer designated for recreational use. The parkland was formerly leased to the City 

of Carlsbad but the lease has subsequently been released. The site is not a park.

There would be no direct impacts to nearby parks, that is, there will be no physical encroachment onto other park 

property. Two other parks may be indirectly impacted by construction noise and vibration. These include Lions Club 

Park in Oceanside located adjacent to the northern limits (within NCTD owned railroad ROW) of the Proposed Action, 

and the Army and Navy Academy’s athletic fields in Carlsbad. 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.11-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Noise and vibration are mitigated to minimize adverse impacts as documented in Section 3.10. Visual and access 

impacts are minimized because the construction is temporary in nature and construction will be planned to minimize 

park access disruptions. The Proposed Action is thus consistent with the Carlsbad and Oceanside General Plan as it 

pertains to the Park and Recreation Element.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. As such, there would be no temporary construction noise or vibration impacts to the Lions Club Park (NCTD 

owned railroad ROW) in Oceanside or the Army and Navy Academy athletic fields in Carlsbad. Therefore, there would 

be no impacts to parks and recreational areas.

3.11.3.2 Open Space Impacts

Proposed Action

A total of approximately 100 acres of the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve (and adjacent City of Carlsbad

designated open space land) is within one-half mile of the project footprint. However, because the Proposed Action’s 

permanent and temporary footprint does not encroach on this land, there would be no direct impacts. Construction of 

the new double track bridge over Buena Vista lagoon would be limited to the NCTD ROW. Temporary construction

noise impacts could adversely affect open space utilization by recreationalists within the Ecological Reserve. Use by 

recreationalists is limited by CDFW to wildlife viewing, hiking, and fishing. However, implementation of avoidance and 

minimization measures outlined in Section 3.3 Biological Resources will minimize adverse impacts to the open space 

and its recreational users by restricting construction operations during certain seasons and maintaining access to the 

limited CDFW allowable uses. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. Therefore, there would be no impacts to open space areas.

3.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Temporary construction impacts to two park and recreation areas would be minimized through implementation of noise 

and construction avoidance and minimization measures as outlined in Section 3.10 and 3.16.11. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action would not result in any adverse impacts to parks and recreational areas. 

3.11.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

There would be no adverse impacts to parks and recreational areas resulting from implementation of the Proposed 

Action and no mitigation measures are required; therefore, there would be no impacts resulting from mitigation.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.12 Public Health and Safety

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.12-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.12 Public Health and Safety

The information provided in the Public Health and Safety section of this EA was prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. for 

the Carlsbad Village Double Track Project, and summarized from the Utility Impacts Report (T.Y. Lin, 2014d), provided 

as Appendix M of EA.

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal regulations govern the design and safety and security of rail transportation systems. The Proposed Action 

would be designed in accordance with applicable federal laws and regulations, including applicable FRA and US 

Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regulations. 

NCTD is the owner and operator of the railroad throughout the study area and is responsible for the safety and security 

of existing railroad facilities.

3.12.2 Affected Environment

3.12.2.1 Emergency Services

Emergency services are provided to the project area by the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, as well as the San Diego 

County Sheriff’s Department. The locations of emergency service facilities are shown on Figure 3.12-1.

Fire Protection

The Carlsbad Fire Department is the first response emergency provider for the portions of the project site that lie in the 

City of Carlsbad, responding to fires and medical emergencies with its trained paramedic staff. Fire Station 1, located 

at 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive, provides primary fire protection and emergency medical services to the portions of the 

project area occurring within the City of Carlsbad. Station 1 is staffed with a total crew of five, including one Captain, 

one Engineer, and three firefighters/paramedics. Apparatus at the station consists of one fire engine and one paramedic 

ambulance.

The Oceanside Fire Department is the first response emergency provider for the portions of the project site that lie in 

the City of Oceanside, responding to fires and medical emergencies with its trained paramedic staff. Fire Station 2, 

located at 1740 South Ditmar Street, provides primary fire protection and emergency medical services to the portions 

of the project area occurring within the City of Oceanside. The Oceanside Fire Department has a staff of over 100 

sworn personnel, with an additional staff of approximately 30 to provide support to the community.

Police Protection

The San Diego Sheriff’s Department Coaster/Railroad Enforcement Unit operates out of the San Diego Sheriff’s 

Encinitas Station and provides contracted law enforcement services for the NCTD’s 62 miles of rail lines. The unit 

provides security along the railroad ROW as well as on the commuter trains themselves.

The Carlsbad Police Department, which operates from the Safety Center located at 2560 Orion Way, provides all law 

enforcement services to the project area occurring within the City of Carlsbad, including patrol, traffic and parking 

enforcement, criminal investigations, crime prevention, and juvenile services. Carlsbad has adopted a standard of a 

maximum six-minute response time for police service on priority-one emergency calls (City of Carlsbad, 2013).
FIGURE

3.12-1 Emergency Service Locations

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_^_

^_

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, ± swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0 1 2 3

Miles

Fire Station #1

1275 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad

Carlsbad Urgent Care

2804 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad

Mission Urgent Care

2690 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad

Fire Station #2

1740 S. Ditmar Street, Oceanside

Oceanside Police Department

3855 Mission Avenue, Oceanside

Carlsbad Police Department

2560 Orion Way, Carlsbad

San Diego County Sheriff's Department, Encinitas Station

175 N. El Camino Real, Encinitas

Project Location

3.12-2
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.12 Public Health and Safety

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.12-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

According to the City’s General Plan, Police service (or the number of officers serving the City) is based upon actual 

workload measures, including response times, travel times, type of service, number of calls for service, and the time of 

day that calls are received.

The Oceanside Police Department, located at 3855 Mission Avenue, provides all law enforcement services to the 

project area occurring within the City of Oceanside, including patrol, traffic enforcement, harbor police, school safety, 

crime prevention, and crime investigations. The Oceanside Police Department is divided into four sectors, with each 

sector serving a different portion of the City. Sector 1 serves the area of the project site.

3.12.2.2 Utilities

Public utilities provided to the project area include water, wastewater, energy, and communications.

Water for the project area is provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and City of Oceanside Water Utilities 

Department, imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), from the Colorado River and 

the California Aqueduct system.

The City of Carlsbad and Oceanside Wastewater Divisions provide wastewater services to the project area. Carlsbad’s 

wastewater is delivered to the Encina Wastewater Authority, where it is treated and released into the ocean.

Oceanside’s wastewater is treated and disposed at the San Luis Rey Wastewater Treatment plant and the La Salina 

Wastewater Treatment Plant. The La Salina Treatment Plant serves the project area. The existing regional sewer 

system consists of collection and interceptor sewers; force main pipelines; various pump stations; water reclamation 

plants; outfall pipes; and, sludge drying beds. 

San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) provides gas and electricity service to the project area, while Southern California 

Gas Company also provides gas service. Energy that is provided throughout California, including to the project area, 

is generated by numerous power plants that are located within and outside the State. Electricity and natural gas are 

supplied to SDG&E via the electric grid, transmission lines, and distribution lines. 

Communication lines run through the area overland and underground. Coaxial and fiber optics cables are located either 

underground or share overhead lines that cross over the project area with SDG&E power lines. Telecommunication 

services are provided to the project area by AT&T, Cox Communications, Crown Castle International, Time Warner 

Cable, and Verizon.

3.12.2.3 Schools 

The Carlsbad and Oceanside Unified School Districts provide public educational services, grades K-12, to the project 

area. Although the Proposed Action is located primarily within a residential area, there are no public schools located 

within one-half mile of the Proposed Action. Only the Army and Navy Academy, a private college preparatory boarding 

school for boys for grades 7-12, located at 2605 Carlsbad Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, is located within one-half 

mile of the project area.
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.12 Public Health and Safety

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.12-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.12.2.4 Hospitals

In the City of Carlsbad, there are two urgent care centers located within one-half mile of the Proposed Action that would 

provide medical services to the project area:

• Carlsbad Urgent Care – 2804 Roosevelt St, Carlsbad, CA 92008

• Mission Urgent Care – 2690 Roosevelt St, Carlsbad, CA 92008

In the City of Oceanside, there are no hospitals or other medical care facilities located within one-half mile of the 

Proposed Action that would provide medical services to the project area.

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences

3.12.3.1 Emergency Services

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action does not contain a residential component that would increase population in the area and 

consequently increase the need for additional fire or police protection services. The operational occupancy for the 

Proposed Action is limited to a few maintenance employees that currently maintain the tracks. In addition, the existing 

use for the project area, which is a railroad track that provides rail service to the region, would not change with the 

Proposed Action.

It is expected that the existing single-track railroad can support projected train trips through approximately the year 

2020, which is 67 daily train trips. With completion of the Proposed Action, it is expected that train trips will increase to 

101 trips per day, an increase of 34 trips per day (SANDAG, 2013d). The City of Carlsbad has expressed concerns for 

increased project-related delay at the Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive grade crossings. Presently, a 

southbound Coaster Train triggers the crossing gates at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive as it approaches 

the railroad station. The gates remain down during the loading and unloading of passengers and as the train starts 

back up and crosses through the two grade crossings. It is only after the train passes through the Carlsbad Village 

Drive crossing that the gates come up. This is not the case for northbound Coasters. For northbound Coasters, the 

gates come back up after the train crosses through the Grand Avenue crossing. SANDAG is investigating changes to 

the signaling that would allow the gates to remain up while southbound Coasters load and unload. The gates would 

only be triggered after the train starts back up, just before it crosses through the two grade crossings. This improvement, 

if feasible, will substantially reduce existing and projected delays at the Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive grade 

crossings, improving public safety access across the tracks. In addition, the Proposed Action includes improvements 

to medians and the installation of pedestrian crossing gates to further improve public safety in this area of downtown 

Carlsbad.

For these reasons, fire emergency service response times from Carlsbad Fire Department Station 1 and Oceanside 

Fire Department Station 2 would not be affected substantially by construction or operation of the Proposed Action. In 

addition, police service response times from the Carlsbad Police Department Safety Center or the Oceanside Police 

Department Station would not be affected substantially by construction or operation of the Proposed Action.

Furthermore, the Sheriff’s Coaster/Railroad Enforcement Unit would continue to provide law enforcement to the railroad 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.12 Public Health and Safety

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.12-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

ROW. Therefore, no substantial adverse impacts to fire or police services would occur as a result of the Proposed 

Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. As such, existing fire and police services would continue to service the area. Therefore, there would be no impact 

to emergency services.

3.12.3.2 Utilities

Proposed Action

The current operation of the existing railroad track does not generate any substantial amount of wastewater. Expansion 

of service would result in a minor increase of wastewater generation by additional train ridership. There is not expected 

to be a noticeable change in wastewater generation because the train riders would otherwise ride in cars or busses to 

reach their destination. In addition, the Proposed Action area would continue to be provided water, electricity, and 

communications by the same utility companies that currently service the City of Carlsbad and Oceanside. However, a 

number of utility lines (i.e. sewer, gas, storm drain, transmission) would need to be relocated to accommodate some of 

the components of the Proposed Action. A summary of utility impacts is provided below in Table 3.12-1.

Table 3.12-1

Utility Impact Summary

Owner Utility Description Utility Conflict/Work Description Resolution

City of 

Carlsbad 10-inch VCP Sewer Pedestrian Underpass Construction Relocate Sewer Line

City of 

Carlsbad 18-inch RCP Storm Drain Pedestrian Underpass Construction Relocate Storm Drain

City of 

Carlsbad Street Light and Pull Box Pedestrian Underpass Construction Relocate Street Light and Pull Box

City of 

Carlsbad

18-inch RCP Storm Drain & 

Type B Inlet Platform Construction Relocate Storm Drain

City of 

Carlsbad Street Light and Pull Box At-grade Crossing Construction Relocate Street Light and Pull Box

CMWD 1-inch Irrigation Service Relocation of Crossing Arm Relocate Irrigation Service

SC Gas Co. 12-inch HP Gas Line Pedestrian Underpass Construction Relocate 12-inch HP Gas Line

SDG&E 1-inch Gas in 3-inch Casing At-grade Crossing Construction Extend Casing & Protect-in-place

Verizon Underground Fiber Optic in 

2.375 inch HDPE Track Shift Relocate Fiber Optic Transmission Line from Under Tracks

Verizon Underground Fiber Optic in 

2.375 inch HDPE

Bridge Replacement and Grading for 

Track Raise

Relocate Fiber Optic Transmission 

Lines to New Bridge, and Raise with 

Grading

Verizon Underground Fiber Optic in 

2.375 inch HDPE

Inter-track Fence & Pedestrian 

Undercrossing Construction

Relocate Fiber Optic Transmission Line 

from Under Inter-track Fence

Note: VCP=Vitrified Clay Pipe, RCP=Reinforced Concrete Pipe, HP=High Pressure, HDPE=High Density Polyethylene.

Source: T.Y. Lin International, 2014d.

The final resolution of each conflict identified in Table 3.12-1 will be determined at a later phase of the Proposed Action 

after potholing, or the digging of test holes, is completed and the design is finalized. Potholing will determine exact 

locations of utilities and also show the length of existing casing for some of the pipes. The information acquired by 

potholing would be used to determine exact relocation lengths and locations. However, it can be expected that all 
3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.12 Public Health and Safety

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.12-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

affected utility lines would be relocated within proposed impact area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would not result in any adverse impacts to utilities.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to utilities.

3.12.3.3 Schools

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action does not contain a residential component that would increase population in the area and 

consequently increase the need for additional school facilities. In addition, there are no Carlsbad or Oceanside Unified 

School District schools located within one-half mile of the Proposed Action. Therefore, there would be no impact to 

schools resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to schools.

3.12.3.4 Hospitals

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action does not contain a residential component that would increase population in the area and 

consequently increase the need for additional medical facilities. The Carlsbad and Mission Urgent Care centers would 

continue to provide medical services to the project area located within the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there would be 

no impact to hospitals or other medical facilities resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to hospitals.

3.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not have an adverse impact on public health and safety, and existing 

public services would continue to sufficiently serve the project area. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

3.12.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

There would be no adverse impacts to public health and safety resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action,

and no mitigation measures are required; therefore, there would be no impacts resulting from mitigation.
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.13 Relocation Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.13-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.13 Relocation Impacts

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Community Impact Assessment for the Pacific Surfliner 

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project prepared by BRG Consulting (BRG, 2014b) (Appendix D of this EA).

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting

3.13.1.1 Federal

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act [42 U.S.C. Chapter 61] 

The Caltrans Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Title 49 CFR Part 24. The purpose of RAP is to ensure 

that persons displaced because of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds are treated fairly, 

consistently, and equitably so that such persons would not suffer disproportionate impacts as a result of projects 

designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.

3.13.2 Affected Environment

The Proposed Action is located entirely within the existing railroad ROW between Cassidy Street in Oceanside and 

Pine Avenue in Carlsbad. The community surrounding the ROW within the Oceanside portion of the Proposed Action 

is exclusively residential, composed of apartment buildings and single-family residences. The land adjacent to the 

Buena Vista Lagoon is public open space offering passive recreation. Within the Carlsbad portion, there is a greater 

mixture of land uses, including restaurants, office, commercial and educational facilities, apartment buildings, 

condominiums, and single-family residences, all contributing to the “Village” character. The Proposed Action would not 

encroach on any land outside the railroad ROW, and therefore no additional land acquisition would be required.

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences

3.13.3.1 Permanent Impacts

Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse relocation impacts, as it would be constructed 

entirely within the existing railroad ROW with no property acquisition required.

No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in any adverse relocation impacts, as it would maintain 

the existing railroad alignment with no property acquisition required.

3.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action would not result in adverse relocation impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.13 Relocation Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.13-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.13.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Since the implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any relocation impacts, no mitigation measures 

are required and no impacts of mitigation would occur.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.14-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Draft Preliminary Drainage Study for the Carlsbad 

Village Double Track Project (T.Y. Lin, 2014b), and the Draft Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the 

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project (T.Y. Lin, 2014c), both prepared by T.Y. Lin International. These reports are 

provided as Appendices I1 and N, respectively, of this EA.

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting

Water resources are regulated by federal, state, regional, and local agencies.

Clean Water Act 

The Federal CWA is the principal statute governing water quality and established the basic framework for regulating 

the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, through a permit system known as the NPDES. The EPA is given 

the authority to implement pollution control programs. The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of 

pollutants from any point source (including stormwater discharges) into WoUS. As defined in the CWA, WoUS applies 

only to surface waters, rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands. The authority to implement the NPDES 

program is generally delegated to individual States. In the case of San Diego County, the authority is delegated to the 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the San Diego RWQCB, which is Region IX.

Section 303

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states, territories and authorized tribes to develop a list of water quality limited 

segments. The waters on the list do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed 

the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish a priority 

ranking for water on the lists and develop action plans to improve water quality.

Section 401

Section 401 of the CWA requires that any activity which may result in a discharge into WoUS must be certified by the 

SWRCB as administered by the local RWQCB. This certification ensures that the Proposed Action does not violate 

Federal water quality standards. 

Section 402

Section 402 of the CWA established the NPDES, which requires permits for discharges of pollutants from certain point 

and non-point sources into WoUS. The CWA allows the EPA to delegate NPDES permitting authority to states with 

approved environmental regulatory programs. The NPDES permit applicable to this project is the General Construction 

Permit (Permit No. CAS000002) and the General Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits of the 

affected Jurisdictions.

North County Transit District - On February 5, 2013 the final draft of the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit (Order No. 

2013-001-DWQ) was adopted and became effective on July 1, 2013. NCTD was included as a Non-Traditional MS4 

Permitee. NCTD has not yet implemented a stormwater program to comply with the new permit.

City of Carlsbad - The City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) complies with the 

MS4 permit for the San Diego Region (Order No. 2013-001-DWQ) and most of the impervious area within the project 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.14-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

limits discharge to City of Carlsbad storm drains, therefore the City of Carlsbad SUSMP was utilized for the entire 

project. 

The City of Carlsbad SUSMP identifies stormwater treatment requirements and minimum stormwater standards that 

apply to new development and redevelopment projects in the City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad, 2011). These include 

minimum standards for Low Impact Development (LID), BMPs, and the requirement of the preparation of a Stormwater 

Management Plan (SWMP). 

Section 404

Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill materials into wetlands, streams, rivers, 

and other WoUS. The USACE is the federal agency authorized to issue 404 Permits for certain activities conducted in 

wetlands or other U.S. waters. Section 404 Permits are not granted without Section 401 certification.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

The Rivers and Harbors Act, enacted by Congress in 1899 was the first federal water pollution act in the United States. 

It focuses on protecting navigation, protecting waters from pollution, and acted as a precursor to the CWA of 1972. 

Section 10 The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) regulates dredging and filling in “Navigable Waters” and 

may apply to activities within the lagoon.

3.14.2 Affected Environment

The project area is located within the Carlsbad HA (904.20) and the Agua Hedionda HA (904.30), which are within the 

Carlsbad Hydrology Unit (904.00). The receiving waters for the project area are two coastal waters: the Buena Vista 

Lagoon to the north and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south. The majority of the project drains into Buena Vista 

Lagoon. According to the 2010 303(d) list approved by the SWRCB (USEPA, 2010), both Buena Vista Lagoon and 

Agua Hedionda Lagoon are 303(d) listed impaired water bodies. 

There are two swales on either side of the tracks at the north end of the project that flow directly into the Buena Vista 

Lagoon. The NCTD ROW in this area is unpaved. To the south, Washington Street and its surrounding parcels, the 

Army and Navy Academy Athletic Field, and the NCTD ROW west of the tracks drains along a trackside ditch that flows 

in the Buena Vista Lagoon. The remaining portion of the station parking lot and the station itself drain into a 66-inch 

storm drain owned by the City of Carlsbad that flows into Buena Vista Lagoon. In addition, project runoff is collected 

within the 84-inch RCP along the east side of the track at Walnut Ave and discharges into Agua Hedionda Lagoon to 

the south. 

The pollutants of concern that are anticipated or can potentially exist at the project site are most likely trash & debris, 

oil, pesticides, and nutrients, but may also include sediment, heavy metals, organic compounds, oxygen demanding 

substances, oil & grease, and bacteria & viruses.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.14-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would not substantially alter the drainage patterns in the area but may generate pollutants of 

concern. 

A preliminary analysis revealed that a bio-swale can be constructed along the north end of the east platform and the 

track. This location was selected due to the available land space while following the existing drainage flow pattern into 

the Buena Vista Lagoon and the accessibility of the site for maintenance. In addition, preliminary analysis revealed that 

a bioretention swale could be constructed along the curb and sidewalk on the northeast side of the parking lot. A 

bioretention basin in this location fits within the available land space with minimal impacts to the parking lot configuration 

while following the existing drainage flow pattern that conveys stormwater runoff to the existing inlet at the northeast of 

the platform. This location would provide treatment of runoff from the existing parking lot in an equivalent area to the 

replaced and newly constructed impervious area. This is more beneficial than treating the platform area only because 

the parking lot is a greater threat for stormwater pollution.

To help ensure optimal water quality during project construction and operation, BMPs would be implemented, as 

required by the City of Carlsbad SUSMP and as detailed in the Draft Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (T.Y. 

Lin, 2014c). These include Standard Site Design BMPs (e.g. minimize impervious surfaces, drain into vegetated 

ditches, prevent erosion control), Source Control BMPs (e.g. mark storm drain inlets, landscape with and preserve 

existing native vegetation), LID BMPs (e.g. preserve natural drainage features, use pervious surfaces), and Treatment 

Control BMPs (e.g. construction of bioretention swale). 

The SUSMP requires hydromodification measures for PDPs to ensure that post-development peak flows do not exceed 

predevelopment peak flows. However, because the Proposed Action is a PDP that would drain directly to a lagoon, the 

project is hydromodification exempt. North of Oak Avenue in Carlsbad, all drainage from the project flows into Buena 

Vista Lagoon, which exists in a freshwater condition due to a weir located at the mouth of the lagoon. The site runoff 

reaching the lagoon would also be freshwater and thus would not impact the freshwater/saltwater balance of the lagoon. 

Additionally, there is heavy vegetation along the banks of the lagoon that would provide protection from erosion, and 

riprap energy dissipators would be constructed at the discharge points to mitigate 100-year stormwater runoff velocities. 

South of Oak Avenue, drainage flows within a storm drain to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. There is no anticipated increase 

in runoff to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and therefore, there would be no impact to the salinity of the lagoon.

Because the Proposed Action would create 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface over the entire project 

site, it would qualify as a Priority Development Project (PDP) and therefore require a SWMP implementing structural 

BMPs to be submitted at the time of application. However, because the project would result in the replacement of 

impervious surface in an amount less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development, the project 

would only require BMPs for the area of replaced or newly constructed pavement. These BMPs are detailed in the Draft 

Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan prepared (T.Y. Lin, 2014c).
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.14-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development related activities, including construction, would occur. The project 

area would remain as it exists today; therefore, there would be no impact to water quality.

3.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to create adverse impacts to water quality. Drainage patterns and drainage 

amounts will be similar to pre- and post- Proposed Action. Through the construction of a bioswale and implementation 

and maintenance of standard BMPs, adverse impacts to water quality will be avoided or minimized. Therefore, no 

mitigation is required for either project alternative.

3.14.5 Impact Analysis of Mitigation Measures

Since the implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any anticipated impacts to water quality, no 

mitigation measures are required and there would be no impacts of mitigation.
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information provided as Appendix L, Pacific Surfliner 

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Section 4(f) Evaluation, prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. (BRG, 2017). The full 

Section 4(f) Evaluation contains a more detailed analysis of impacts to Section 4(f) resources, including figures and 

impact tables. 

Information on Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act Section 6(f) resources is summarized from research at 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund website (http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm), review of Wildlife 

Conservation Board Meeting Minutes (https://wcb.ca.gov/Board-Actions) and communication with the CDFW South 

Coast Region.

3.15.1 Regulatory Setting

Section 4(f)

SANDAG anticipates seeking Federal financial assistance for the Proposed Action from the FRA. Such financial 

assistance would be an approval subject to Section 4(f). Section 4(f) protects public parklands and recreational lands, 

wildlife refuges, and historic sites of national, state, or local significance, commonly referred to as Section 4(f) properties 

or resources. The FRA may not approve the use of a Section 4(f) property unless the FRA determines the following:

1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of the land from the property;

2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from the use, 

or;

3. The administration determines that the use of the property, including any measures to minimize harm 

committed by the applicant, would have a de minimis impact, as defined in Section 774.17 on the property.

The “use” of a protected Section 4(f) property occurs when any of the conditions described below are met. A “use” of 

properties protected under Section 4(f) may be:

4. Permanent, where 4(f) resources are permanently incorporated into a proposed transportation facility;

5. Temporary, where 4(f) resources are not permanently incorporated into a transportation facility, but there is a 

temporary occupancy of property that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist purposes of the 

Section 4(f) statute;

6. Constructive, where a transportation project does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the 

proximity of the project results in impacts that are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes 

that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.

When a project would need to use a minor amount of Section 4(f) protected property, FRA can make a de minimis 

impact determination. A de minimis impact determination may be made for a permanent incorporation or temporary 

occupancy of Section 4(f) property. Such findings must include sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that 

the impacts, after avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures are taken into account, are de 

minimis and that the required coordination has been completed. 
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

According to 49 USC 303(d), the following criteria must be met to reach a de minimis impact determination:

• For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact determination may be 

made if a transportation project would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes qualifying the 

property for protection under Section 4(f) after mitigation. In addition, to make a de minimis impact 

determination, there must be public notice (with opportunity for public review and comment), and written 

concurrence received from the officials with jurisdiction over the property.

• For a historic site, a de minimis impact determination may be made only if, in accordance with the Section 106 

process of the NHPA, it is found that the transportation program or project would have no effect or no adverse 

effect on historic properties and FRA has received written concurrence from the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO).

If there is a 4(f) use that is not de minimis, then the agency must evaluate whether there are “feasible and prudent” 

avoidance alternatives to the use of the property, and if not, then it must undertake all possible planning to minimize 

harm to the property.

Section 6(f)

The LWCF Act protects property acquired or developed with LWCF grant funding from conversions from public outdoor 

recreation use. Specifically, Section. 6(f)(3) states, “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this 

section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The 

Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive 

statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of 

other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.”

3.15.2 Affected Environment

3.15.2.1 Section 4(f)

Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

A park or recreation area qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) if it (1) is publicly owned, (2) is open to the general

public, (3) is being used for recreation, and (4) is considered significant by the authority with jurisdiction.

A wildlife or waterfowl refuge qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) if it (1) is publicly owned, (2) is being used as a 

refuge, and (3) is considered significant by the authority with jurisdiction.

As shown on Figure 3.15-1, the Proposed Action is located within one-half mile of eight publicly-owned parks and 

recreation areas, including property owned by the City of Oceanside, the City of Carlsbad, and the State of California. 

The privately-owned athletic fields (Army & Navy Academy of Carlsbad) and Lion’s Club Park (completely within the 

rail ROW and owned by NCTD) are shown on the figure (along with Rotary Park) but do not qualify as 4(f) resources. 

Therefore, omitting these properties, there are 166.6 acres of 4(f) resources as compared to 173.6 acres of park and 

recreation areas (see Table 3.11-1). At the Buena Vista Lagoon, the Proposed Action is adjacent to the
FIGURE

Land Evaluated for 4(f) Eligibility 3.15-1

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: Esri, 2013; SanGIS, 2013; ASM Affiliates, 2013; T.Y. Lin, 2013 10/16/17

I-5 SB

I-5 NB

CARLSBAD BL

I-5 RA

PIO PICO DR

S COAST HY

MADISON ST

STATE ST

KELLY ST

STEWART ST

S PACIFIC ST

VISTA WY

GRAND AV

HARDING ST

JEFFERSON ST

CASSIDY ST

BROADWAY

OCEAN ST

MORSE ST

ALLEY

ROOSEVELT ST

PACIFIC TR

WHALEY ST

CHESTNUT AV

S MYERS ST

ALVARADO ST

S DITMAR ST

S TREMONT ST

ADAMS ST

S FREEMAN ST

S HORNE ST CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

PINE AV

HOPE AV

CALIFORNIA ST

MAGNOLIA AV

TYLER ST

OAK AV

EATON ST

LINCOLN ST

ACACIA AV

LUCKY ST

S NEVADA ST

WASHINGTON ST

EUREKA PL

BEECH AV

HEMLOCK AV

HOME AV

ST MALO BEACH

BASSWOOD AV

KNOWLES AV

REDWOOD AV

I-5 SB OFF RA

GARFIELD ST

S CLEMENTINE ST

ANCHOR WY

I-5 NB ON RA

WOODLAND WY

PALM AV

DAVIS AV

LAGUNA DR

LAS FLORES DR

VILLAGE DR

CHRISTIANSEN WY

TUTTLE ST

PACIFIC AV

HIGHLAND DR

BURROUGHS ST

MORENO ST

SHERRI LN

WALNUT AV

SERRANO ST

MACHADO ST

BUENA PL

KRISTY LN

CYPRESS AV

STRATFORD LN

MAPLE AV

NAUTICAL DR

HIBISCUS CR

JUNIPER AV

LAGUNA ST

CHERRY AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE RD

MARSHALL ST

RUE DE LA MER

MTN VIEW DR

CAMELIA

PRIVATE DR

AVOCADO LN

HORNE PL

CAMELLIA PL

SYCAMORE AV

KIRMAR PL

ARBUCKLE PL

HERBY WY

GREGORY DR

SPANISH WY

KREMEYER CR

LA SALINA PL

LEWIS LN

CABRILLO PL

DAVIS PL

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PINE AV

BEECH AV

ALLEY

MORENO ST

BURROUGHS ST

PRIVATE RD

LINCOLN ST

VISTA WY

PRIVATE DY

OAK AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

JEFFERSON ST

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

CHESTNUT AV

ALLEY

PINE AV

MORSE ST

I-5 RA

WALNUT AV

I-5 RA

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE RD

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

EATON ST

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

LAGUNA DR

GARFIELD ST

KELLY ST

PRIVATE DR

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

PALM AV

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

I-5 RA

MAGNOLIA AV

CHESTNUT AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

ALLEY

OAK AV

S NEVADA ST

ALLEY

 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±

0 300 600 900 1,200Feet

Half-Mile Evaluation Area

Permanent Impact Area

Temporary Impact Area

Historic Site

Public Parkland

City of Carlsbad Designated Open Space

Wildlife Refuge

Buccaneer Park

Lions Club

Park

Maxton Brown

Park

Army & Navy

Academy

Athletic Fields

Magee Park

Carlsbad State Beach

Pine Avenue

Park

Rotary Park

Chase Field

Holiday Park

1920 S. Broadway

116 Eaton St.

417 & 457

Carlsbad Village Dr.

Santa Fe Depot

3077 & 3087

State St.

CDFW Buena Vista Lagoon

Ecological Preserve

CITY OF CARLSBAD

CITY OF OCEANSIDE

CDFW Buena Vista Lagoon

Ecological Preserve

City of Carlsbad

Open Space

3.15-3
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which is owned and managed by the CDFW, in association with the Buena 

Vista Lagoon Foundation, and Buena Vista Audubon (City of Carlsbad, 2013). Directly north of the Carlsbad Boulevard 

bridge are two parcels owned by the City of Carlsbad (APN 155-200-01, -13) that are adjacent to the CDFW-owned 

Reserve area. These parcels are not officially part of the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve and are not identified 

as core or conserved lands in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan (City of Carlsbad, 2004). They are 

designated in the Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad, 2013) as open space preservation of natural resources. 

However, the majority of the land comprising these parcels are mapped as urban/developed (parking lot with 

structures), non-native vegetation and disturbed coastal sage scrub (Merkel and Associates, Inc., 2016). Since these 

parcels are not being managed as conserved lands and due to their developed/disturbed nature their current use is not 

for refuge activities, they are not considered a 4(f)-protected refuge resource for the purposes of this evaluation. 

All lands within one-half mile of the Proposed Action that qualify as parklands, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl 

refuges that may qualify for protected under Section 4(f) are listed in Table 3.15-1.

Table 3.15-1

Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas, and Refuges Within Project Vicinity

APN Acreage Description Owner

153-011-06 10.40 Buccaneer Park (Oceanside) City of Oceanside

155-200-08 0.94 Maxton Brown Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

203-142-04 2.06 Magee Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

204-310-01 16.50 Carlsbad State Beach 

(Carlsbad) State of California

204-100-05 7.10 Pine Avenue Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

204-193-01 2.73 Chase Field (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

205-111-26, 205-111-27, 

205-111-17, 205-111-24 5.97 Holiday Park (Carlsbad) City of Carlsbad

155-072-14, 155-101-66, 

155-130-24, 155-130-27, 

155-130-37, 155-130-29, 

155-140-29, 155-140-33, 

155-140-34, 155-190-09, 

155-190-12, 155-221-10, 

203-010-18

120.90 Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological 

Reserve

California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW)

Total 166.60

Source: SanGIS, 2013

Historic/Cultural Resources

A historic site or cultural resource eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP may qualify for protection under Section 4(f) if land 

from the site is permanently or temporarily incorporated into the project. If a project does not physically take 

(permanently incorporate) the historic site or cultural resource, but causes an adverse effect, the proximity impacts 

must be evaluated to determine if the proximity impacts would substantially impair the features or attributes that 

contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the historic site or cultural resource. While the statutory requirements of Section 

106 and Section 4(f) are similar, even if a Proposed Action results in an “adverse effect” under Section 106, there would 

not automatically be a Section 4(f) “use” absent a separate analysis and determination by FRA.

Prior to completing this Section 4(f) evaluation, an NHPA Section 106 analysis was prepared that identified historic 

architectural and archaeological resources in the historic architectural and archaeological APEs to determine their 

significance. For more detailed information on this process, refer to the Cultural Resources Technical Report in 

Appendix F of this EA (ASM Affiliates, 2013). 
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

The report identified no historic resources within the direct impacts APE. However, it did identify seven historic 

resources within the indirect APE that are listed or recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. These resources are 

listed below in Table 3.15-2. The preliminary and conservative determinations are subject to the review and 

concurrence by the SHPO, and are considered preliminary until SHPO has concurred. Consultation with the SHPO 

regarding the eligibility of historic resources and determination of effects will be conducted concurrently with public 

review of this EA. On August 3, 2017, FRA sent a letter to SHPO formally initiating the consultation under Section 106.

Table 3.15-2

Eligible Historic Properties within the Indirect APE

NRHP Site Number Description Recommended as Eligible Under 

NRHP Criteria*

NR 93001016 Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, Carlsbad A, C

N/A 116 Eaton St., Oceanside A, C

N/A 1920 S. Broadway St., Oceanside A

N/A 417 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad A

N/A 457 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad A

N/A 3077 State St., Carlsbad A, C

N/A 3087 State St., Carlsbad A, C

Source: ASM Affiliates, 2013

*NRHP Eligibility Criteria Key: A) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B) Associated 

with the lives of persons significant in our past; C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; D) Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

3.15.2.2 Section 6(f)

There were two separate land acquisitions within the Buena Vista Ecological Reserve that utilized LWCF assistance 

and thus qualify as Section 6(f) resources. The parcels within a half mile of the Proposed Action that are protected by 

Section 6(f) are listed in Table 3.15-3 and shown on Figure 3.15-2.

Table 3.15-3

Section 6(f) Resources

APN Acreage Description Owner

155-130-24 17.02 LWCF Acquisition CDFW

155-130-29 2.53 LWCF Acquisition CDFW

155-140-33 25.21 LWCF Acquisition CDFW

155-140-34 26.13 LWCF Acquisition CDFW

Total 70.89

Source: SanGIS, 2013.

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Park and Recreation Areas

Impacts to Section 4(f)-protected parkland may include direct impacts such as physical encroachment via incorporation 

of parkland into the proposed transportation facility, as well as indirect impacts such as potential disruption of park 

access, a perceptible increase in noise, or visual changes that would diminish the use and enjoyment of the parks. A 

total of 45.7 acres of parkland within one-half mile of the Proposed Action would qualify for protection as parkland under 

Section 4(f). As shown on Figure 3.15-1, these parks and recreation areas are outside the Proposed Action’s
FIGURE

Section 6(f) Resources 3.15-2

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

SOURCE: Esri, 2016; SanGIS, 2016; T.Y. Lin, 2013 9/12/16

15514034

15514033

15513024

15513029

I-5 SB

I-5 NB

CARLSBAD BL

I-5 RA

PIO PICO DR

S COAST HY

MADISON ST

STATE ST

KELLY ST

STEWART ST

S PACIFIC ST

VISTA WY

GRAND AV

HARDING ST

JEFFERSON ST

CASSIDY ST

BROADWAY

OCEAN ST

MORSE ST

ALLEY

ROOSEVELT ST

PACIFIC TR

WHALEY ST

CHESTNUT AV

S MYERS ST

ALVARADO ST

S DITMAR ST

S TREMONT ST

ADAMS ST

S FREEMAN ST

S HORNE ST CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR

PINE AV

HOPE AV

CALIFORNIA ST

MAGNOLIA AV

TYLER ST

OAK AV

EATON ST

LINCOLN ST

ACACIA AV

LUCKY ST

S NEVADA ST

WASHINGTON ST

EUREKA PL

BEECH AV

HEMLOCK AV

HOME AV

ST MALO BEACH

BASSWOOD AV

KNOWLES AV

REDWOOD AV

I-5 SB OFF RA

GARFIELD ST

S CLEMENTINE ST

ANCHOR WY

I-5 NB ON RA

WOODLAND WY

PALM AV

DAVIS AV

LAGUNA DR

LAS FLORES DR

VILLAGE DR

CHRISTIANSEN WY

TUTTLE ST

PACIFIC AV

HIGHLAND DR

BURROUGHS ST

MORENO ST

SHERRI LN

WALNUT AV

SERRANO ST

MACHADO ST

BUENA PL

KRISTY LN

CYPRESS AV

STRATFORD LN

MAPLE AV

NAUTICAL DR

HIBISCUS CR

JUNIPER AV

LAGUNA ST

CHERRY AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE RD

MARSHALL ST

RUE DE LA MER

MTN VIEW DR

CAMELIA

PRIVATE DR

AVOCADO LN

HORNE PL

CAMELLIA PL

SYCAMORE AV

KIRMAR PL

ARBUCKLE PL

HERBY WY

GREGORY DR

SPANISH WY

KREMEYER CR

LA SALINA PL

LEWIS LN

CABRILLO PL

DAVIS PL

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PINE AV

BEECH AV

ALLEY

MORENO ST

BURROUGHS ST

PRIVATE RD

LINCOLN ST

VISTA WY

PRIVATE DY

OAK AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

JEFFERSON ST

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

CHESTNUT AV

ALLEY

PINE AV

MORSE ST

I-5 RA

WALNUT AV

I-5 RA

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE RD

I-5 RA

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

EATON ST

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

LAGUNA DR

GARFIELD ST

KELLY ST

PRIVATE DR

PRIVATE DY

ALLEY

PRIVATE DY

PALM AV

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

I-5 RA

MAGNOLIA AV

CHESTNUT AV

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

PRIVATE DY

I-5 RA

ALLEY

OAK AV

S NEVADA ST

ALLEY

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,

and the GIS User Community ±

0 300 600 900 1,200Feet

Half-Mile Evaluation Area

LWCF Acquisition Parcels

Permanent Impact Area

Temporary Impact Area
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

permanent and temporary impact area and will not be directly impacted. Section 4(f) parklands will not be indirectly 

impacted through disruption of park access, increase in noise/vibration or visual changes as supported by discussions 

in Section 3.16.11, 3.10 and 3.1 of this EA, respectively.

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

A total of 120.90 acres of the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve is within one-half mile of the project APE and 

would therefore qualify for protection under Section 4(f). However, because the Proposed Action’s permanent and 

temporary impact area does not encroach on this land, there would be no direct impacts. Construction of the new 

double track bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon would be limited to within the NCTD ROW. However, there may be

temporary indirect impacts associated with noise.

Historic and Cultural Resources

As discussed in the Cultural and Historical Resources Existing Conditions and Evaluation Report (ASM Affiliates, 2013), 

there are seven historic resource sites within the indirect APE that are either listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

These resources could be subject to indirect effects from the Proposed Action. Although no significant visual, auditory, 

or atmospheric effects were identified as a result of the evaluation of indirect effects on the seven historic resource 

sites recommended as eligible within the indirect APE, the Proposed Action has the potential to result in a temporary 

vibration impact to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot during construction (see Section 3.16.5 and 3.16.10 of this EA). The 

Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is within close proximity to the Proposed Action. Because of the nature of the materials of 

this historic resource, including its character-defining features, it is possible that vibrations generated during 

construction of the Proposed Action would have the potential to damage some of the historic fabric that qualifies it for 

4(f) protection. Consequently, the Proposed Action has the potential to result in an indirect impact to the Carlsbad Santa 

Fe Depot during construction. This potential construction-related impact is addressed in Section 3.16.15 of this EA.

It should be noted that the potential vibration impact would result from construction of the Proposed Action, not from 

operational levels of the Proposed Action. The vibration levels at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot site would result in no 

change with operation of the Proposed Action.

Section 6(f) Resources

The Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve qualifies as a Section 6(f) resource. However, all Proposed Action impacts 

will be within the rail ROW and will not convert any portion of the property that has received LWCF funding.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no development would occur and there would not be any change to existing conditions.

Therefore, no impacts to any Section 4(f)-protected resources nor Section 6(f)-protected resources are identified for 

the No Action Alternative. 

3.15.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action may result in a temporary vibration impact to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot

during construction of the Proposed Action. However, as discussed in Section 3.16.5 and 3.16.15, these impacts are 

temporary. A Vibration Monitoring Plan would be implemented in accordance with Mitigation Measure CHR-1, which 

would monitor construction-generated vibration.
3.0 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.15-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Implementation of the Proposed Action may cause noise impacts to wildlife within the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological 

Reserve. However, as discussed in Section 3.3, consultation between the FRA and the USFWS under Section 7 of the 

ESA would determine avoidance and minimization measures to minimize adverse effects to listed species within the 

Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve.

Consultation Requirements

Pursuant to 23 CFR Section 774.5(1) for historic properties, consultation and concurrence on a ‘no adverse effect’ or 

‘no historic properties’ affected must be received from SHPO. Consultation requirements, including public review and 

comment on the Proposed Action effects on historic properties and wildlife refuges, will occur concurrently with public 

review of this EA.

There is no conversion of Section 6(f) resources to non-recreational uses, thus conversion and project agreement 

amendment requests need not be submitted to the National Park Service (per 36 CFR Section 59.3). 

3.15.5 Impacts After Mitigation Measures

As discussed in Section 3.16.5 and 3.16.15 of this EA, implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 would reduce any 

adverse indirect vibration impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot resulting from construction activities. As discussed 

in Section 3.3, consultation under Section 7 of the ESA would ensure adverse impacts to wildlife or waterfowl refuges 

(Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve) are avoided and minimized.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16 Construction Impacts

This section of the EA discusses the potential environmental impacts to the issue areas described below associated 

with construction of the Proposed Action. The information contained in this section is summarized from the various 

technical reports prepared for each respective issue area, as cited herein, or was prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc. 

3.16.1 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources

3.16.1.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

With implementation of the Proposed Action, the Lagoon and Carlsbad Village Landscape Units would not substantially 

differentiate from their existing visual quality and visual response. The Lagoon Landscape Unit would remain with 

natural and man-made features with landforms, vegetation, access and human structures. The Carlsbad Village 

Landscape Unit would maintain office, commercial, and residential development surrounding the railroad tracks. The 

Proposed Action would slightly expand the railroad infrastructure and alter the existing landform due to the widening of 

the bridge within the lagoon and grade crossing modifications throughout the developed segment; but overall, the 

impact would be minimal as disturbed areas are revegetated per the mitigation measures required in the biological 

resources section of this EA. It is anticipated construction would occur over an 18 to 30 month time frame and would 

include construction of additional embankment in the easterly half of the Buena Vista Lagoon, removal and construction 

of the railroad bridge, removal and construction of the existing Carlsbad Village Station Platform, and construction of 

an additional track, in addition to other relevant tasks. Truck trips to and from the project and construction equipment, 

stockpiles, and staging areas may slightly adversely affect the visual quality of the lagoon prior to revegetation; 

however, these features are required only during construction.

The temporary visual impacts are expected to be minimal due the distance of the site from the available public 

viewpoint. During construction, the existing setting of the lagoon and the Carlsbad Village Station would be temporarily 

disturbed within the railroad ROW. However, construction would take place within the railroad ROW and would be 

distant from all public viewsheds discussed; therefore, visual impacts related to construction are considered to be 

negligible. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction or construction-related visual impacts and the existing 

environment would remain as described in the Affected Environment Section 3.1.2. There would be no constructionrelated adverse impacts to visual impacts. 

3.16.1.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

It has been determined that visual impacts related to construction of the Proposed Action would be temporary with 

implementation of the biological resources avoidance and minimization measures BR1 through BR7 listed in Section 

3.3.4, Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures of this EA; therefore, the visual impacts related to the 

construction are considered to negligible and no further mitigation would be required.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.16.2.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would be anticipated to be completed within two and a half 

years. The construction activities and equipment/vehicles use data for the Proposed Action were provided by Pan 

Environmental (2013). Table 3.16-1 presents construction activities associated with the Proposed Action. On-road 

vehicles to be used for construction workers and material transportation during construction of the Proposed Action 

were based on model default values.

Table 3.16-1

Construction Activities

Construction Activity Construction Days

Clearing 20

Utility Relocation 20

Station Improvements 90

Earthwork 45

Retaining Walls 45

Shoring 30

Track Installation 45

Signals 25

Demolish Existing Bridge 10

Construct BV Lagoon Bridge 300

Install Track Over Bridge 6

Signal Work at MT-1 25

Final Cut-Over and Removal of Turnouts 15

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

Air pollutant and GHG emissions resulting from construction activities associated with the Proposed Action were 

estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) developed by the California Air Pollution Control 

Officers Association. This model estimates both maximum daily and annual average emissions for criteria air pollutants 

and GHG emissions. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions from a variety of source types, including off-road 

equipment and vehicle usage, on-road vehicle travel, and fugitive dust emissions, which are the primary emissions 

sources associated with construction of the Proposed Action.

Air Quality

Table 3.16-2 presents estimated maximum daily air pollutant emissions in pounds per day (lbs/day) associated with 

construction of the Proposed Action. Estimated annual air pollutant emissions during construction phases are shown 

in Table 3.16-3. The model output files are included in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact 

Analysis Technical Report (Appendix B of this EA).
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.16-2

Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions 

Year

Estimated Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions

(lbs/day)

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2016 17.97 194.50 113.62 0.18 25.17 15.91

2017 23.12 243.87 136.21 0.24 13.37 11.01

2018 10.03 103.70 61.01 0.11 5.12 4.78

Emission Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

Table 3.16-3

Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions 

Year

Estimated Maximum Annual Air Pollutant Emissions

(tons/year)

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2016 0.74 7.77 4.68 <0.01 0.81 0.56

2017 1.56 15.83 9.02 0.02 0.83 0.76

2018 0.53 5.40 3.20 <0.01 0.27 0.25

Emission Threshold -- 40 100 40 15 --

Exceeds Threshold? -- No No No No --

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

As shown in Tables 3.16-2 and 3.16-3, the air pollutant emissions were estimated to be substantially below the 

corresponding emission thresholds. As such, the Proposed Action would not have an adverse construction-related 

impact on air quality.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 3.16-4 presents estimated annual GHG emissions in metric tons per year (metric tons/year) associated with 

construction of the Proposed Action. The model output files are included in Appendix A of the Air Quality and 

Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Report (Appendix B of this EA). There is no Federal standard for GHG emissions.

Table 3.16-4

Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions

Year

Estimated Annual GHG Emissions

(metric tons/year)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e

2016 657.94 0.19 0.00 661.83

2017 1,433.67 0.41 0.00 1,442.28

2018 532.05 0.15 0.00 535.25

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and existing air quality and GHG emissions would remain, 

as they exist today. Therefore, there would be no adverse construction-related impacts to air quality and GHG 

emissions under the No Action Alternative.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.2.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

As previously stated in this EA, the Proposed Action is part of the LOSSAN Program. Although no adverse constructionrelated air quality or GHG emissions impacts have been identified, the LOSSAN Program recommends several BMPs 

to ensure that air quality and GHG impacts are minimized during project-level construction phases to the maximum 

extent practicable. The Contractor would implement the following BMPs during the construction phases of the Proposed 

Action:

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all trucks maintain at least two 

feet of freeboard.

• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking 

areas and staging areas at construction sites.

• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction 

sites.

• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas 

inactive for ten days or more).

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

• Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible.

• Minimize equipment idling time.

• Maintain properly tuned equipment.

Implementation of the above BMPs as recommended in the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS would result in reductions of air 

pollutant and GHG emissions. However, with or without implementation of the subject BMPs, the Proposed Action 

would not have adverse impacts on air quality or GHG emissions during construction phases.

Tables 3.16-5 through 3.16-7 on the following page present estimated emissions after implementation of the above 

BMPs.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.16-5

Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions 

(After BMPs)

Year

Estimated Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions

(lbs/day)

VOC

(D)

NOX

(D)

CO

(D)

SO2

(D)

PM10

(D)

PM2.5

(D)

2016 17.95 

(0)

194.33

(-.17)

113.52

(-.10)

0.18

(0)

17.15

(-8.02)

10.94

(-4.97)

2017 23.10 

(-.02)

243.65

(-.22)

136.08

(-.13)

0.24

(0)

13.34

(-.03)

11.07

(+.06)

2018 10.02

(-.01)

103.61

(-.09)

60.96

(-.05)

0.11

(0)

5.11

(-.01)

4.77

(-.01)

Emission Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No

Notes: (D) = Delta of impact difference as a result of mitigation measure implementation.

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

Table 3.16-6

Estimated Annual Construction Air Pollutant Emissions 

(After BMPs)

Year

Estimated Maximum Annual Air Pollutant Emissions

(tons/year)

VOC

(D)

NOX

(D)

CO

(D)

SO2

(D)

PM10

(D)

PM2.5

(D)

2016 0.73

(-.01)

7.76

(-.01)

4.68

(0)

<0.01

(0)

0.65

(-.16)

0.46

(-.10)

2017 1.56

(0)

15.81

(-.02)

9.01

(-.01)

0.02

(0)

0.83

(0)

0.76

(0)

2018 0.53

(0)

5.39

(-.01)

3.19

(-.01)

<0.01

(0)

0.27

(0)

0.25

(0)

Emission Threshold -- 40 100 40 15 --

Exceeds Threshold? -- No No No No --

Notes: (D) = Delta of impact difference as a result of mitigation measure implementation.

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.

Table 3.16-7

Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions (After BMPs)

Year

Estimated Annual GHG Emissions

(metric tons/year)

CO2

(D)

CH4

(D)

N2O

(D)

Total CO2e

(D)

2016 657.18

(-.76)

0.19

(0)

0.00

(0)

661.07

(-.76)

2017 1,431.97

(-1.7)

0.41

(0)

0.00

(0)

1,440.57

(-1.71)

2018 531.41

(-.64)

0.15

(0)

0.00

(0)

534.62

(-0.63)

Notes: (D) = Delta of impact difference as a result of mitigation measure implementation.

Source: Pan Environmental, 2013.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.3 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.16.3.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

All construction related impacts to biological resources and wetlands are discussed in Section 3.3.3, Environmental 

Consequences, of this EA.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and existing resources would remain as they exist today. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse construction-related impacts to biological resources and wetlands under the No 

Action Alternative.

3.16.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

All avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures designed to address construction related impacts to biological 

resources and wetlands are discussed in Section 3.3.4, Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures, of this 

EA.

3.16.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

3.16.4.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within the NCTD ROW, and would not isolate any portion of 

a neighborhood or ethnic group, nor would it separate residences from community facilities near the Proposed Action 

area. As further discussed in Section 3.4, Community Impacts and Environmental Justice of this EA, there are no 

minority populations within the Proposed Action affected area and therefore a minority population would not be affected 

by construction of the Proposed Action. Although Census Tracts 179 and 180 are considered low-income populations, 

construction associated with the Proposed Action would not result in any construction-related resource impacts that 

would affect the public or human populations, and thus would not result in an environmental justice impact. During 

construction the Proposed Action would also have positive economic impacts and will improve the economic stability 

of the region by providing reliable commuter alternatives to the passenger car, reducing highway congestion, adding 

railroad–related employment opportunities and income, and provide additional revenues for the area. Therefore, 

construction associated with the Proposed Action would not result in any adverse community impacts or 

disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations located within the project area, and could potentially 

have beneficial economic impacts. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and existing communities would remain as they exist 

today. Therefore, there would be no adverse construction-related impacts to communities under the No Action 

Alternative.

3.16.4.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

There would be no construction-related community impacts, economic impacts, or disproportionate impacts on minority 

or low-income populations as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization 

and/or mitigation measures are required. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

3.16.5.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is located along the property line adjacent to the Proposed Action, where heavy 

construction would be taking place. As further discussed in Section 3.16.10 below, because of the nature of the 

materials of this historic resource, including its character-defining features, it is possible that vibrations generated during 

construction would have the potential to damage elements that comprise the historic fabric of the Santa Fe Depot.

Consequently, construction of the Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse indirect impacts under 36 CFR 

800. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 would reduce any adverse indirect construction-related 

impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot to a negligible level. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and cultural resources and historic properties would 

remain unaltered, as they exist today. Therefore, there would be no construction related adverse impacts to cultural 

resources or historic properties.

3.16.5.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse indirect impacts on the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot because 

of the resource’s close proximity to the Proposed Action and the nature of the historic fabric of this building. However, 

implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 would reduce any adverse indirect impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe 

Depot resulting from construction activities.

CHR-1 Vibration measurements at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Historic Depot would be conducted during all construction 

activities at this location. The Contractor would be required to submit a Vibration Monitoring Plan prepared, 

stamped, and administered by an acoustical engineer. The Vibration Monitoring Plan would include the 

vibration instrumentation, location of vibration monitors, data acquisition, and exceedance notification and 

reporting procedures, as identified in Appendix C of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by 

ATS Consulting, Inc. (2014).

3.16.6 Geology and Soils

3.16.6.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils of this EA, groundwater was encountered in all three borings conducted 

at Buena Vista Lagoon (Lagoon Segment) and both borings conducted at Carlsbad Village Station (Village Segment).

In addition, the near surface marine and estuary deposits of the Lagoon Segment were observed to be loose to medium 

dense and potentially liquefiable during the Serviceability, Ultimate, and Survivability seismic events. Since the 

Proposed Action is located in seismically active southern California, it would be subject to shaking from both local and 

distant earthquakes and seismically induced settlement could pose a potential adverse geologic hazard in the Lagoon 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Segment. The possibility of large seismic events on the nearby Newport Inglewood – Rose Canyon fault zone would 

have the potential to result in adverse impacts to both the Lagoon and Village Segments. Furthermore, the on-site soils 

sampled at the Lagoon Segment are classified as corrosive.

The geologic hazards identified above and further discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, of this EA could 

potentially result in adverse impacts during construction of the Proposed Action. However, the Proposed Action would 

be required to incorporate the seismic design criteria provided in the AREMA Manual pursuant to 49 CFR 237 and the 

NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions Manual pursuant to the provisions of the EHRA. In addition, the Proposed 

Action would implement Mitigation Measure GS-1 through GS-3 and Avoidance/Minimization Measure GS-4. As such, 

potential impacts associated with groundwater, strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced 

settlement, and corrosive soils would be reduced to a negligible level, and the Proposed Action would not result in any 

adverse construction-related geology and soils impacts.

No Action Alternative

If the Proposed Action were not implemented, existing geology and soils would remain, as they exist today and potential 

impacts would not occur. As such, implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on geology and 

soils.

3.16.6.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse impacts to geology and soils in the Lagoon 

Segment. As such, SANDAG would implement the following mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to geology 

and soils to a negligible level.

GS-1 Following bridge type selection, a supplemental geotechnical field investigation would occur once the final 

foundation type has been determined. The supplemental investigation would include one geotechnical boring 

near the northern abutment that would be converted over to a monitoring well at the completion of the boring 

to record groundwater pressures. A set of fully grouted vibrating wire piezometers would be installed at a 

location that could be protected through design and construction. Properly located, the piezometers would be 

used by SANDAG and the Contractor to determine the groundwater conditions prior and continuously 

throughout construction to determine necessary measures in the Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) pile installation 

plan and to resolve potential differing site condition claims.

GS-2 A Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding near the northern abutment would be performed, as needed, for the 

Designer to evaluate the in-situ density of the soils within the pressurized aquifer and to provide continuous 

information throughout the profile to further evaluate the liquefaction potential of material that were identified 

as potentially liquefiable.

GS-3 Soil corrosivity issues will be addressed in conformance with AREMA during subsequent design efforts by the 

Designer. Possible mitigation measures would include increased cover for reinforcing steel and corrosion 

resistant cement (for concrete piles), and sacrificial steel would be provided for steel surfaces in contact with 

site soils.

In order to avoid and/or minimize any impacts to geology and soils, pursuant to the EHRA and the USGS LHP in 

fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, the following avoidance and minimization measure would be 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

implemented to protect geology and soils both during design and during construction of the Proposed Action, and would 

reduce any potential impacts to a negligible level.

GS-4 All future grading and construction of the project site performed by the Contractor would comply with the 

geotechnical recommendations contained in the Preliminary Foundation Reports prepared for the Carlsbad 

Village Station Pedestrian Undercrossing and the Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge (Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a 

and 2014b). These reports identify specific geotechnical recommendations that would be implemented during 

the design and construction of the project. 

3.16.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

3.16.7.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Due to the intrusive nature of the construction involved for the Proposed Action, it is recommended that preliminary 

media sampling (surface and near surface soils in particular) be conducted prior to commencing any intrusive work at 

the site to confirm whether contaminants are or are not present at the subject property. As discussed in Section 3.7.2 

of this EA, the subject property’s historic use as an active railroad since the 1880’s may provide for the presence of 

creosote, heavy metals (such as arsenic), petroleum based compounds, and other non-metal herbicide compounds. If 

these contaminants are present, they may pose a risk to human health (site workers and the public within the vicinity 

of the subject property) from the inhalation of dust or direct contact with skin or eyes. Furthermore, the contaminants 

may pose a risk to natural habitat or sensitive species in the open area around the lagoon, and may threaten the water 

quality of the lagoon. As such, potential impacts to human and/or environmental health resulting from exposure to 

contaminants potentially present on the Proposed Action site would be considered adverse. However, preliminary 

media sampling would identify the location, if any, of potential contaminants on the Proposed Action site and measures 

to reduce their exposure would be developed at that time.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is equivalent to the existing conditions; therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materialshazardous waste are associated with maintaining the existing conditions.

3.16.7.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action could have an adverse impact related to hazardous materials/hazardous waste when intrusive 

work is conducted (for example bridge pilings, pedestrian underpass). In order to assure that contaminants are not 

present and minimize potential adverse impacts, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

HZ-1 The Contractor would conduct preliminary media sampling (surface and near surface soils in particular) prior 

to any intrusive work at the site to confirm whether contaminants are or are not present at the subject property.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.8 Hydrology and Floodplains

3.16.8.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Typical construction related impacts to hydrology and floodplains may include flooding, soil erosion, stormwater runoff, 

and sedimentation. However, implementation of a SWPPP including the proper use of construction BMPs would 

minimize construction related hydrology and floodplain impacts. Additionally, the Proposed Action includes the 

construction of a new double track bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon, which is designated as a FEMA Zone A floodplain.

A 25-year storm event was modeled to simulate flooding conditions during construction of the proposed bridge. 

Maximum water elevations at the bridge during construction were determined to be 8.9 feet. These results indicate that 

the proposed bridge would not cause adverse flooding impacts during construction. Therefore, construction of the 

Proposed Action would not result in any adverse hydrology and floodplains impacts.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur. The project area would remain as it exists today; 

therefore, there would be no impacts to hydrology and floodplains.

3.16.8.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Construction of the Proposed Action would not adversely impact the drainage patterns within the project area’s 

hydrologic setting. To ensure no construction-related impacts to hydrology or floodplains occur, a hydromodification 

management plan and a SWPPP detailing construction BMPs would be prepared during final design. 

3.16.9 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

3.16.9.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within the NCTD ROW, and no permanent or temporary 

property acquisition would be required. Temporary construction access would be provided through existing NCTD 

maintenance access roads. As further discussed in Section 3.9, there would be no construction-related impacts to any 

of the resource areas with implementation of the Proposed Action. As such, the Proposed Action would not result in 

any conflicts with any of the corresponding elements of the General Plans (i.e. Noise Element, Public Safety Element) 

for Carlsbad and Oceanside, and there would be no construction-related impacts to existing land uses, zoning, or 

properties as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur. The project area would remain as it exists today; 

therefore, there would be no impacts to land use, zoning, or property acquisitions.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.9.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

There would be no construction related impacts to existing land uses, zoning, or properties as a result of the 

implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures are 

required.

3.16.10 Noise and Vibration

Construction Noise Criteria

According to the FTA, project construction noise criteria should take the following into account: the existing noise 

environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of construction, and adjacent land 

uses (FTA, 2006). Sound level guidelines suggested by the FTA for the evaluation of construction noise impacts are 

summarized in Table 3.16-8. In urban areas with high ambient noise levels (Ldn greater than 65 dBA), the sound level 

from construction should not exceed the ambient sound level by more than 10 dBA.

Table 3.16-8

FTA Guidelines for Assessing Construction Noise Impact

Land Use 8-hour Leq (dBA)

Day Night

Residential 80 70

Commercial 85 85

Industrial 90 90

Source: FTA, 2006.

City of Carlsbad Municipal Code

Chapter 8.48, Noise, of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code deems it unlawful to operate equipment or perform any 

construction or grading or excavation of land during the following hours:

• After 6:00 p.m. on any day and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday;

• All day on Sunday, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, 

Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

Any construction activities during these hours would require a permit granting an exception by the city manager. There 

are no noise level limits for construction.

City of Oceanside Municipal Code

Chapter 38, Noise Control, of the City of Oceanside Municipal Code does not have allowable hours or noise level limits 

for construction. It states that the city manager, or the manager's designee, on a case-by-case basis, may authorize 

construction, maintenance or other public improvement activities by a government agency or a public utility, that exceed 

the noise, duration or hour of work limits established by Chapter 38, upon a determination that the authorization furthers 

the public interest.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Construction Vibration Criteria

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information provided in the Noise and Vibration Impact 

Analysis, (ATS Consulting, 2014) (Appendix K of this EA). Vibration is generally assessed in terms of peak particle 

velocity (PPV) for risk of building damage. PPV is the appropriate metric for evaluating the potential of building damage 

and is often used when monitoring blasting and construction vibration because it relates to the stresses that are 

experienced by the buildings. Vibration damage risk thresholds referenced in the FTA and FRA Guidance Manuals are 

used to assess potential for damage from construction. The damage risk criterion of 0.12 inch/second PPV is used for 

the Carlsbad Santa Fe Historic Train Depot. Construction vibration, unlike vibration from operations, has the potential 

to cause damage to structures at very close distances, from activities such as impact hammering and pile-driving. 

Generally, because of the short duration of construction vibration activities, annoyance is usually not an issue. The 

thresholds for damage for even the most sensitive buildings are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than the criteria for 

annoyance from vibration.

3.16.10.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction Noise Impacts

Construction noise varies greatly depending on the construction process, type and condition of equipment used, and 

layout of the construction site. Many of these factors are traditionally left to the contractor's discretion, which makes it 

difficult to accurately estimate levels of construction noise. Overall, construction noise levels are governed primarily by 

the noisiest pieces of equipment. For most construction equipment, the engine, which is usually diesel, is the dominant 

noise source. This is particularly true of engines without sufficient muffling. 

Projecting construction noise requires a construction scenario of the equipment likely to be used and the average 

utilization factors or duty cycles (i.e., the percentage of time during operating hours that the equipment operates under 

full power during each phase). Table 3.16-9 shows categories of equipment that are likely to be used and the typical 

noise generated by this equipment when it is operating at full load. The typical noise levels, along with estimates of 

what equipment would be used during the loudest phases of the project, and the usage factors (how long the equipment 

is used) for each category of equipment are used to estimate construction noise levels. 

Construction noise estimates are always approximate because of the lack of specific information available at the time 

of this EA. Project designers usually try to minimize constraints on how the construction would be performed and what 

equipment would be used so that contractors can perform construction in the most cost effective manner. Minimization 

measures have been included that incorporates effective, best-practice noise control measures during construction.

Based on a typical construction scenario for ballast-and-tie track construction, an 8-hour Leq of 88 dBA should be 

expected at a distance of 50 feet from the geometric center of the work site. With at-grade track construction, the 

duration of the activities at a specific location along the alignment would be relatively limited, usually a matter of several 

weeks. As a result, even when there may be noise impacts, the limited duration of the construction can mean that some 

forms of mitigation are not cost effective.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-13 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.16-9

Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Sound Level at 50 Feet Under Full Load

Earthmover (bulldozer, front-end loader, etc.) 82 dBA

Mobile Crane 81 dBA

Dump Truck 76 dBA

Pneumatic Tools 85 dBA

Generator 78 dBA

Compressor 81 dBA

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.

Temporary noise during construction of the new tracks and the stations has the potential of being intrusive to residents 

near the construction sites. Most of the construction would consist of site preparation and laying new track, and would 

only occur during daytime hours and construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local 

noise regulations. In addition, specific residential property line noise limits would be developed during final design and 

included in the construction specifications for the Proposed Action, and noise monitoring would be performed during 

construction to verify compliance with the limits. Furthermore, the noise control measures identified below would be 

implemented as needed to meet the noise limit standards.

Construction Vibration Impacts

A construction vibration analysis for the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is provided in Appendix C of the Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment. The building is located directly along the property line adjacent to the Proposed Action, where 

heavy construction would be taking place. Because of the nature of the materials of this historic resource, including its 

character-defining features, it is possible that vibrations generated during construction would have the potential to

damage elements that comprise the historic fabric of the Santa Fe Depot.

Construction activities in the vicinity of the Historic Train Depot would include soil excavation for trackbed construction, 

compaction of subgrade and ballast, and track laying activity. The expected equipment to be used during these 

construction phases are loaders/backhoes, dozers, track tampers, track-laying machines, track stabilizers, and forklifts.

Table 3.16-10 is a summary of the predicted construction vibration levels during the phases of construction that would 

generate the maximum vibration levels: soil excavation for trackbed construction, and compaction of subgrade and 

ballast. Track laying activities is not expected to result in vibration levels that would approach the damage risk criteria 

for the Carlsbad Santa Fe Historic Depot (0.12 inch/second PPV). 

During compaction of the subgrade and ballast there is the potential to exceed 0.12 inch/second PPV at the Historic 

Train Depot when the track tamper is used within 20 feet of the building. Vibration monitoring would be required to 

ensure the threshold criteria is not exceeded. 

In summary, construction of the Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse indirect impacts under 36 CFR 

800. However, as identified in Section 3.16.5 above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 would reduce any 

adverse indirect construction-related vibration impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot to a negligible level.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-14 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Table 3.16-10

Major Vibration Generating Construction Activities

Construction 

Phase Equipment

PPV 

Reference 

Level at 100 

feet (in/sec)

Receiver Distance 

(feet)

Predicted 

Vibration 

Level – PPV 

(in/sec)

Damage 

Risk Criteria

– PPV 

(in/sec)

Potential 

Exceedance 

of Damage 

Risk Criteria

Soil Excavation 

for Trackbed 

Construction

Loader/Backhoe 

Dozer 0.011

Front of Depot 

Building 15 0.089 0.12 No

Rear of Depot 

Building 43 0.028 0.12 No

Compaction of 

Subgrade and 

Ballast

Track Tamper 0.022

Front of Depot 

Building 15 0.177 0.12 Yes

Rear of Depot 

Building 43 0.056 0.12 No

Source: ATS Consulting, 2014.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no noise or vibration impacts to 

sensitive receptors that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.16.10.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Temporary noise during construction of the new tracks and the station has the potential of being intrusive to residents 

and other sensitive receptors near the construction sites. However, construction activities would be carried out in 

compliance with all applicable local noise level standards. In addition, specific residential property line noise limits would 

be developed during final design and included in the construction specifications for the Proposed Action, and noise 

monitoring would be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. Furthermore, the Contractor

would implement the following noise control measures as needed to meet the noise limit standards:

• Avoiding nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods.

• Using specially quieted equipment with enclosed engines and/or high-performance mufflers.

• Locating stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive sites.

• Constructing noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and 

noise-sensitive receivers.

• Re-routing construction-related truck traffic along roadways that would cause the least disturbance to residents.

• Avoiding impact pile driving near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. Drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory 

pile driver are quieter alternatives where the geological conditions permit their use.

With incorporation of the noise control measures described above, impacts from construction-generated noise would be 

minimized. To provide added assurance, a complaint resolution procedure should also be put in place to rapidly address any 

noise issues that may develop during construction. Therefore, the Proposed Action has minimized adverse constructiongenerated noise impacts, and no mitigation measures are required.

Construction of the Proposed Action poses the potential for vibration-related impacts to occur to the Carlsbad Santa 

Fe Historic Depot structure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 (preparation of a Vibration Monitoring Plan), 

as identified in Section 3.16.5 above, would monitor any potential adverse indirect construction-related vibration 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-15 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot and would include notification and reporting procedures. In addition, any 

potential construction-related vibration impacts to any other sensitive receivers would be avoided by implementing 

numeric limits in the construction specifications (ATS Consulting, 2013).

3.16.11 Parks and Recreational Areas

3.16.11.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

While there would be no direct impacts to nearby parks by physical encroachment onto the property, the two nearest 

parks may be impacted by construction noise and vibration. These include Lions Club Park in Oceanside, and the Army 

and Navy Academy’s athletic fields in Carlsbad. Located at the northern end of the project site, Lions Club Park is within 

100 feet of the permanent and temporary impact areas, and directly across from Cassidy Street which is the entrance 

to the temporary access road that would provide ingress/egress for construction vehicles. The Army and Navy 

Academy’s athletic fields are located immediately south of, and directly adjacent to, the ROW and the permanent impact 

area. Both parks are close enough to the project site to be potentially impacted by construction noise and vibration as 

a consequence of implementation of the Proposed Action. However, as further discussed above in Section 3.16.10, 

Noise and Vibration, construction activities for the Proposed Action would be in compliance with all applicable local 

noise regulations. In addition, noise and vibration numeric limits in construction specifications would be implemented, 

as necessary, which would minimize construction-generated noise and vibration impacts.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and the existing conditions would remain, as they exist 

today. As such, there would be no temporary construction-related impacts to Lions Club Park or the Army and Navy 

Academy athletic fields. Therefore, no adverse impacts to parks or recreational areas would occur.

3.16.11.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Lions Club Park and the Army and Navy Academy’s athletic fields could potentially experience temporary construction 

noise and vibration impacts. However, the Proposed Action would be in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Noise and vibration limits would be implemented, as necessary, which would minimize constructiongenerated noise and vibration impacts (see Section 3.16.10). In addition, recreational access will be maintained during 

construction. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.16.12 Public Health and Safety

3.16.12.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Emergency Services 

Work on new medians in Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, and crossing improvements could result in 

localized congestion with the potential to reduce access by emergency vehicles. Such work would happen under the 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-16 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

protection of traffic control personnel, who would be instructed to ensure access by emergency vehicles. Also, traffic 

control personnel would ensure that protection of vehicles and pedestrians at the railroad crossings would be 

maintained during work on any safety feature such as crossing gates and signals. These measures would minimize the

construction related impacts to emergency services from the Proposed Action. 

Utilities

A number of utility lines (i.e. sewer, gas, storm drain, transmission) would need to be relocated to accommodate some 

of the components of the Proposed Action. Test holes will be dug as the design is finalized to determine exact locations 

of utilities. The information acquired would be used to determine exact relocation lengths and locations. It can be 

expected that all affected utility lines would be relocated within proposed impact area. Therefore, implementation of the 

Proposed Action would not result in any adverse impacts to utilities.

Schools and Hospitals

Existing schools and hospitals are located more than half a mile from the ROW and there will be no increase in demand 

for their services. Schools and hospitals will not be impacted by the Proposed Action.

Therefore, the Proposed Action has no or minimized impacts to public health and safety.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and the existing conditions would remain, as they exist 

today. As such, there would be no temporary construction-related impacts, which may affect the public health or safety.

3.16.12.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

There would be no or minimal construction related impacts to public health or safety as a result of the implementation 

of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

3.16.13 Relocation Impacts

3.16.13.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

There would be no persons, businesses, and/or employment that would need to be relocated as a result of 

implementation of the Proposed Action, as it would maintain the existing railroad alignment within the existing railroad 

ROW with no property acquisition required. Therefore, there would be no construction related impacts resulting in 

relocation.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and the existing conditions would remain, as they exist 

today. As such, there would be no temporary construction-related relocation impacts; and therefore, no mitigation 

measures would be required.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-17 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.16.13.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

There would be no persons, businesses, and/or employment that would need to be relocated as a result of the 

implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, there would be no construction related impacts resulting in 

relocation, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.16.14 Water Quality and Water Resources

3.16.14.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction activities may have the potential to generate runoff that would discharge pollutants into Buena Vista 

Lagoon and/or Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which are both listed as Section 303(d) impaired water bodies. Construction 

discharges could result in a water quality impact. However, with the implementation of a SWPPP and construction 

BMPs, impacts to water quality would be minimized.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur. The project area would remain as it exists today; 

therefore, there would be no impact to water quality.

3.16.14.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

With the implementation of a SWPPP and construction BMPs, including Standard Site Design BMPs (e.g. minimize 

impervious surfaces, drain into vegetated ditches, prevent erosion control), Source Control BMPs (e.g. mark storm 

drain inlets, landscape with and preserve existing native vegetation), LID BMPs (e.g. preserve natural drainage 

features, use pervious surfaces), and Treatment Control BMPs (e.g. construction of bioretention swale), water quality 

impacts to downstream receiving waters as a result of the Proposed Action would be avoided or minimized. Therefore, 

no mitigation measures are required.

3.16.15 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation

3.16.15.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Park and Recreation Areas. A total of approximately 46 acres of parkland within one-half mile of the Project Alternative 

would qualify for protection as parkland under Section 4(f), however, the parkland is located outside of the Proposed 

Action’s permanent and temporary impact area. 

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges. A total of approximately 121 acres of the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve 

is within one-half mile of the Proposed Action and would therefore qualify for protection under Section 4(f). However, 

because the Proposed Action’s permanent and temporary impact area does not encroach on this land, there would be 

no direct impacts. Construction of the new double track bridge over Buena Vista Lagoon would be limited to within the 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-18 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

NCTD ROW. However, there may be temporary indirect impacts associated with noise that may diminish the value of 

wildlife habitat.

Historic and Cultural Resources. As discussed in the Cultural and Historical Resources Existing Conditions and 

Evaluation Report (ASM Affiliates, 2013), there are seven historic resource sites within the indirect APE (includes 

additional areas that the Proposed Action could indirectly affect, that is a one parcel buffer surrounding the APE) that 

are either listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. These resources could be subject to indirect effects from the Proposed

Action. Although no significant visual, auditory, or atmospheric effects were identified as a result of the evaluation of 

indirect effects on the seven historic resource sites recommended as eligible within the indirect APE, the Proposed 

Action has the potential to result in a temporary vibration impact to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot during construction.

The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot is within close proximity to the Proposed Action. Because of the nature of the materials 

of this historic resource, including its character-defining features, it is possible that vibrations generated during 

construction of the Proposed Action would have the potential to damage some of the historic fabric that qualifies it for 

4(f) protection. Consequently, the Proposed Action has the potential to result in an adverse indirect impact to the 

Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CHR-1 in Section 3.16.5 would reduce any 

adverse indirect construction-related impacts to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot to a negligible level. 

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and the existing conditions would remain as they exist 

today. As such, there would be no temporary construction-related impacts to Section 4(f) properties. Therefore, no 

adverse impacts to Section 4(f) would occur.

3.16.15.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the Proposed Action may result in a temporary vibration impact to the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot

during construction of the Proposed Action. However, as discussed in Section 3.16.5, these impacts are temporary. A 

Vibration Monitoring Plan would be implemented in accordance with Mitigation Measure CHR-1, which would minimize 

the potential for construction-generated vibration.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would temporarily generate noise that may interfere with the value of wildlife 

habitat. However, as discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.15.4, consultation between the FRA and the USFWS under 

Section 7 of the ESA would determine avoidance and minimization measures to minimize adverse effects to listed 

species within the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve.

3.16.16 Paleontological Resources

3.16.16.1 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is located within the north Coastal Plain Region of San Diego County. This geographic region 

includes the near-shore area, comprised of raised Pleistocene marine and non-marine terraces ranging from 3 to 12 

miles (5 to 20 kilometers) in width. Miocene and Tertiary marine deposits underlie these terraces (ASM Affiliates, 2013). 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-19 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

The coastal terraces are dissected by westerly flowing streams, most of which are under tidal influences near the coast 

forming broad tidal flats and estuaries.

The Proposed Action site is underlain by shallow and thick sections of young to old alluvial paralic deposits and alluvial 

flood plain deposits. The marine and continental paralic deposits are associated with estuarine/lagoonal, alluvial, and 

littoral depositional environments. These deposits form a deep basin underneath the Buena Vista Lagoon. The old 

paralic deposits are mantled by the Santiago Formation, which consists of poorly indurated, grey to brownish grey, silty 

fine-grained sandstone. The Santiago Formation also consists of interbeds and lenses of siltstone and claystone (Earth 

Mechanics, Inc., 2014). Table 3.16-11 provides the paleontological resource sensitivity for each of these formations.

Table 3.16-11

Paleontological Resources

Geologic Formation/Unit Paleontological Sensitivity

Middle Eocene Santiago Formation High

Old Quaternary Paralic Deposits Moderate

Recent Alluvial Floodplain Deposits Low

Source: Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014; Deméré & Walsh, 1994.

As identified in Table 3.16-11, alluvial floodplain deposits have a low potential for producing significant paleontological 

resources, while old paralic deposits have a moderate potential for producing significant paleontological resources. In 

addition, the Santiago Formation has a high potential for producing significant paleontological resources. However, the 

Santiago Formation mantles the old paralic deposits in the central portion of the Buena Vista Lagoon located outside 

the temporary and permanent impact area of the Proposed Action. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Proposed 

Action would result in adverse impacts to potential paleontological resources located within the Santiago Formation.

Due to the moderate paleontological sensitivity of the old paralic deposits underlying the site, excavation associated 

with construction of the Proposed Action would have the potential to uncover significant paleontological resources. 

Although the Proposed Action would not involve substantial grading and earthwork, implementation of Mitigation 

Measure PR-1 would minimize any potential impacts to paleontological resources potentially located within old paralic 

deposits.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, existing geologic formations would remain as they exist today and any fossils 

preserved in these formations would not be impacted. As such, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on 

paleontological resources.

3.16.16.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

In order to avoid and/or minimize any impacts to paleontological resources, SANDAG would implement the following 

Mitigation Measure during the construction of the Proposed Action.

PR-1 Prior to site grading, a qualified paleontologist would be retained by SANDAG to carry out an appropriate 

mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a minimum MS. or PhD. in 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 3.16 Construction Impacts

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.16-20 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) In addition, the 

following would be implemented:

• The qualified paleontologist would be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the 

grading and excavation contractors.

• A paleontological monitor would be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original cutting of 

previously undisturbed sediments to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the event that fossils are 

discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day in field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils 

are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as 

an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological 

monitor would work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) 

• When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) would recover them. In 

most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil 

specimens (such as complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In 

these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) would be allowed to temporarily 

direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner subject to railroad 

safety requirements. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains, such as 

isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing 

operation on the site.

• Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program would

be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.

• Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, would either be 

deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such 

as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained by the SANDAG and displayed for the public 

at an appropriate location such as the SANDAG offices.

• A final summary report would be completed and retained on file at SANDAG that outlines the results 

of the mitigation program. This report would include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic 

section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.17 Cumulative Impacts

This EA was prepared in compliance with NEPA, CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, and FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA Procedures). The following definition of cumulative impacts under NEPA is 

found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 of the CEQ Regulations:

“Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time.”

3.17.1 Affected Environment

The preparation of this cumulative impact analysis included the consultation and consideration of City of Oceanside 

and Carlsbad and regional development projects from the Cities, SANDAG, and Caltrans highway projects. For local 

land development, infrastructure, and highway projects the approach to cumulative impacts analysis was determined 

by the proximity to the Carlsbad Village Double Track site. Current and reasonably foreseeable projects considered in 

the cumulative analysis for the Proposed Action are identified in Table 3.17-1, Cumulative Projects, and their locations 

are shown on Figure 3.17-1, Cumulative Projects. Information on these projects was obtained through review of 

available environmental documentation.

The area of cumulative effect varies depending on the resource issue analyzed. Most of these projects are physically 

too far away to contribute to cumulative impacts for most resource areas (except for Biology, Air Quality and Geology 

and Soils) because the impacts for most resources would be limited to a small geographical area in the immediate 

vicinity of the cumulative project. Cumulative projects considered for analysis of Biology, Air Quality and Geology and 

Soils include other rail projects in close proximity to the Proposed Action and projects proposed within the Buena Vista 

Lagoon. The Proposed Action lies within close proximity of six projects including the CP North Oceanside Double Track 

Project, Carlsbad Double Track Project, Poinsettia Station Improvements, Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track Project, 

replacement of the Buena Vista Lagoon I-5 bridge as part of the I-5 NCC Project as well as the proposed Buena Vista 

Lagoon Enhancement Project, which is an existing project under review and consideration by SANDAG as shown in 

Figure 3.17-2. 

Table 3.17-1

Cumulative Projects 

Project Name Jurisdiction/Location Proposed Development Project 

Status

North Oceanside 

Double Track 

Project (CP 

Eastbrook to CP 

Shell)

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

ROW in the City of 

Oceanside between 

Oceanside Harbor and 

Pier View Way.

Approximately one-mile of second track 

will be added that will join two existing 

double track segments together, replace 

the bridge over San Luis Rey River with 

a double track bridge.

Design

Carlsbad Double 

Track and Bridge 

Project

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

Approximately 1.9 mile of second track 

will be added between MP 229.5 and MP 

231.4. The project included a new double 

Construction 

completed in 

2012.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Project Name Jurisdiction/Location Proposed Development Project 

Status

ROW in the City of 

Carlsbad between 

Carlsbad Village Drive 

and south of Cannon 

Road.

track bridge over Agua Hedionda Lagoon 

and a new grade crossing and expansion 

over Cannon Road.

Poinsettia 

Station 

Improvements 

Project

Poinsettia Train Station in 

Carlsbad

The Poinsettia Station Improvements 

Project is located in the City of Carlsbad 

and includes the replacement of the 

existing at-grade pedestrian rail crossing 

with a new grade-separated pedestrian 

undercrossing. In addition, Poinsettia 

Station’s signal system will be modified, 

and an inter-track fence will be installed.

Design

Batiquitos 

Lagoon Double 

Track Project

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

ROW in the cities of 

Carlsbad and Encinitas.

Approximately 2.7 miles of second track 

will be added that will join two existing 

double track segments together, replace 

the bridge over Batiquitos Lagoon with a 

double track bridge.

Design

Buena Vista 

Lagoon 

Enhancement 

Project

SANDAG – City Carlsbad 

and City of Oceanside

SANDAG is currently in the process of 

developing an enhancement plan with a 

range of alternatives considering 

protection of endangered species; 

promotion of native costal plant and 

animal species requirements; 

improvement to water quality; and, longterm site maintenance and management. 

Several alternatives involve replacing the 

Highway 101 (Carlsbad Blvd) Bridge that 

traverses the Lagoon.

Draft 

Environmental 

Impact Report 

has been 

reviewed by 

public.

I-5 North Coast 

Corridor project

I-5 Bridge 

Replacement

City of Carlsbad/Buena 

Vista Lagoon

Caltrans and SANDAG propose to 

lengthen the Buena Vista Lagoon bridge 

from 102 feet to 197 feet. However, final 

bridge design is not available, as it will 

depend on the alternative chosen for the 

Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement 

Project. 

Final EIR/S. 

Bridge design 

pending

Los Peñasquitos 

Lagoon Bridge 

Replacements

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

ROW between 

approximately McGonigle 

Road and Carmel 

Mountain Road in San 

Diego.

Replaces four aging timber trestle 

railway bridges at MP 246.1, 246.9, 

247.1, and 247.7 that were built in the 

early 1900s.

Under 

Construction

Sorrento Valley 

Double Track

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

ROW between southern 

end of Los Peñasquitos 

Lagoon to the Sorrento 

Valley train station in San 

Diego

Approximately one-mile of second 

mainline track added to the existing 

railroad, extend the Sorrento Valley train

station platforms, add additional station 

parking areas, and replace three existing 

bridges.

Open for 

Service

Sorrento to 

Miramar Phase 1

North County Transit 

District/SANDAG –

LOSSAN corridor railroad 

ROW from MP 249.8 to 

MP 251.0 in San Diego

Double track from MP 249.8 to MP 

251.0; replace Bridge 249.9 over Carroll 

Canyon Creek with a concrete double 

track bridge on the west of the existing 

Valley Boulevard; construct a 12-foot 

wide access road north of the existing 

track along the majority of the alignment; 

Open for 

Service
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Project Name Jurisdiction/Location Proposed Development Project 

Status

and relocate a Control Point (CP) from its 

existing location north of Bridge 249.9 to 

MP 251.

Dual Access 

Ramps

Caltrans/I-805 (Carroll 

Canyon Road) In San 

Diego

Construction of the north facing dual 

access ramps from the Carroll Canyon 

Road extension to the median of I-805, 

as well as, the construction of 

northbound and southbound HOV lanes 

within the median from Mira Mesa 

Boulevard to the existing HOV lanes at I5 including median bridge widening at 

the Sorrento Valley Boulevard 

undercrossing and the Mira Mesa 

Boulevard undercrossing

Under 

Construction

Los Angeles to 

San Diego 

(LOSSAN) Rail 

Improvements

From Los Angeles to San 

Diego

Rail Corridor Improvement -

Program-level evaluation of 

double-tracking of railroad tracks and 

other improvements including bridge and 

track replacements, new platforms, 

pedestrian undercrossings, and other 

safety and operational enhancements.

ROD issued in 

2009

Oceanside 

Through Track Oceanside Transit Center

Rail Corridor Improvement - Add platform 

and third track to accommodate Coaster 

and/or Metrolink trains.

Construction to 

begin in 2016.

Sorrento to 

Miramar Phase II

City of San Diego from I805 to Miramar Road.

Add two miles of second main track to 

the San Diego region’s coastal rail 

corridor between I-805 and Miramar 

Road. Improve Miramar Hill by reducing 

grade and sharp turns.

EA and Design 

completion late 

2016.

Encinitas 

Pedestrian 

Crossings 

Santa Fe Drive, El Portal 

Street, Montgomery 

Avenue, and Hillcrest 

Drive

Rail Corridor Improvement - Four 

grade-separated pedestrian crossings 

including underpasses, landscape 

improvements, environmental mitigation, 

and street crossing improvements on 

adjacent roadways.

Santa Fe DriveIn Service.

Others in 

design

San Elijo Lagoon 

Double Track 

Between approximately 

Birmingham Drive in 

Encinitas and Ocean 

Street in Solana Beach

Rail Corridor Improvement - Add 1.5 

miles of second track, enhance existing 

pedestrian crossing at Chesterfield Drive, 

and replace San Elijo Lagoon Bridge.

Construction to 

being in 2016

San Dieguito 

Double Track

Between approximately 

Lomas Santa Fe Drive in 

Solana Beach and 

Camino Del Mar in Del 

Mar

Rail Corridor Improvement – 1.7 miles of 

second track including construction of 

new double track bridge structures, a 

special events rail platform at the Del 

Mar Fairgrounds, and associated 

improvements.

EA/FONSI 

Design 

Completion 

2016

Del Mar Bluffs 

Stabilization 

Projects 

Between Seagrove Park 

and Torrey Pines State 

Beach in the City of Del 

Mar

Rail Corridor Improvement - Stabilized 

portions of the 1.6 miles of coastal bluffs 

with soldier piles and an architecturally 

enhanced pile caps.

Third phase 

completed 

spring 2012.

Elvira to Morena 

Double Track 

Project

From approximately I-805 

south to Balboa Avenue 

in San Diego

Rail Corridor Improvement - 2 miles of 

second track and realignment, new 

universal crossovers, and 4 new bridges.

Under 

Construction

San Diego River 

Double Track 

Project

From Approximately 

Clairemont Drive 

overhead to Old Town 

Station in San Diego

Rail Corridor Improvement - 0.9 miles of 

second track and realignment, and anew 

San Diego River Bridge.

Construction to 

begin in 2016

Source: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2016.
^_

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri

Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Cumulative Projects 3.17-1

FIGURE

¬«1

¬«2

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

¬«8

¬«8

¬«8

¬«8

¬«9

¬«11

¬«12

¬«13

¬«14

¬«16

¬«17

¬«18 ± 0 2 4 6 8

Miles

LOSSAN Projects

1. North Oceanside Double Track Project

2. Oceanside Through Track

3. Oceanside Double Track

4. Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project; and

 North Coast Corridor I-5 Bridge Replacement Project

5. Carlsbad Double Track

6. Poinsettia Station Improvements

7. Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track

8. Encinitas Pedestrian Crossings

9. San Elijo Lagoon Double Track

10. San Dieguito Double Track

11. Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Projects

12. Los Penasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacements

13. Sorrento Valley Double Track

14. Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1

15. I-805 Dual Access Ramps

16. Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2

17. Elvira to Morena Double Track

18. San Diego River Double Track

Proposed Project

¬«10

¬«15

¬«7

¬«3

3.17-5
^_

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri

Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013

SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2016 9/12/16

Carlsbad Village Double Track EA

Adjacent Cumulative Projects 3.17-2

FIGURE

± 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Carlsbad Village Double Track

North Coast Corridor

I-5 Bridge Replacement

Batiquitos Lagoon

Double Track Project

Buena Vista Lagoon

Enhancement Project

Poinsettia Station Improvements Project

North Oceanside Double Track

(Eastbrook to Shell)

Carlsbad Double Track

Oceanside Through Track

Oceanside Double Track

3.17-6
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.17.2 Adjacent Cumulative Projects

North Oceanside Double Track Project (CP Eastbrook to CP Shell/San Luis Rey River)

The North Oceanside Double Track project is located along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in the City of Oceanside between 

Oceanside Harbor and Pier View Way. The North Oceanside Double Track Project will replace the aging single-track 

bridge over San Luis Rey River with a double track bridge and construct a one-mile stretch of second main track that 

will join two existing double track segments together. SANDAG is also collaborating with the City of Oceanside to 

improve the bike and pedestrian undercrossing on the south side of San Luis Rey River rail bridge, redesign the car 

and pedestrian undercrossing adjacent to the Oceanside Harbor, and construct street median improvements at 

Surfrider Way to support a future Quiet Zone in Oceanside that would limit train horn noise. Two track crossovers will 

be installed along the existing railroad tracks between Surfrider Way and Pier View Way to allow trains to cross from 

one track to the other as they approach or leave Oceanside Transit Center. This project increases the railroad’s 

schedule reliability, operational flexibility, capacity, and level of service by providing a second track where trains can 

stop to allow other trains to pass. This project is a critical part of the 351-mile LOSSAN rail corridor and serves as a 

vital link for passenger and freight movements in the San Diego region.

The project site and surrounding area contains wetland and riparian habitat with sensitive vegetation communities that 

have the potential to support federally listed species, but the project is sited and designed to minimize impacts to such 

areas. Additionally, the project includes comprehensive on- and off-site mitigation, monitoring, and revegetation plans 

to mitigate all impacts to wetland habitat. The project includes adequate measures to protect water quality and would 

reduce automobile congestion, miles traveled, energy consumption, air emissions, and non-point source pollutants into 

nearby water bodies. The project is in the engineering design phase and is not currently funded for construction. FRA 

processed a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for this project. 

South Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project

In cooperation with SANDAG and NCTD, Amtrak finished building the South Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project, 

a 1.9 mile second main track from Carlsbad Village Drive to south of Cannon Road between MP 229.5 and MP 231.4.

The South Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project included a new rail bridge over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon as 

well as a new grade crossing expansion at Cannon Road. Additionally, this project included installing new switches to 

allow trains to change tracks efficiently and wiring and infrastructure to accommodate potential Quiet Zone technology 

in the future. The South Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project eliminated bottlenecks and provided additional 

travel options on commuter trains. With the completion of this double track project, Carlsbad now has a five-mile stretch 

of continuous double track. This project is part of a larger effort to improve passenger service trains by adding a second 

track to the 60-mile segment of the LOSSAN rail corridor in San Diego County. Construction of the project was finished 

in February 2012. FTA processed a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for this project. 

Poinsettia Station Improvements Project

The Poinsettia Station Improvements Project is located in the City of Carlsbad and includes the replacement of the 

existing at-grade pedestrian rail crossing with a new grade-separated pedestrian undercrossing. In addition, Poinsettia 

Station’s signal system will be modified, and an inter-track fence will be installed to allow for freight and limited stop 

Amtrak trains to pass through the station while a passenger train is in the station loading/unloading. This project is in 

the design and permitting phase. FTA processed a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for this project. 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-7 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track Project

The Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track Project is located in the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas and includes construction 

of 2.7 miles of second main track in south Carlsbad, replacing the Batiquitos Lagoon Bridge, and expanding the La 

Costa Avenue grade undercrossing in the City of Encinitas. This project is beginning preliminary design. FTA is 

processed a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for this project. 

Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project

The Buena Vista Lagoon is located in the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, in northern San Diego County. The lagoon 

is bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the west, Vista Way/State Route 78 on the north and Jefferson Street on the east 

and south. Historically (e.g., pre-1940s), the lagoon was in a dynamic equilibrium between a tidal-influenced saltwater 

system during dry conditions and a river-influenced freshwater system during wet weather. Over time the lagoon was 

converted to a freshwater system as a result of highway, roadway, and railroad construction and installation of a weir 

across the lagoon outlet. The existing weir, built in 1972, established a minimum water level within the lagoon of 5.6 

feet AMSL. The lagoon has been progressively degrading in terms of benefits and value to biological communities, 

habitats, and human uses. Without enhancement, it would most likely become a vegetated freshwater marsh or riparian 

woodland-meadow within the next 30 to 50 years. This degradation would reduce or eliminate existing wetland functions 

and values, and result in increased concerns about vectors, water quality impairments, and impacts to aesthetic 

resources.

Since 2001, numerous federal, state, and local agencies and organizations have been engaged in a planning effort for 

the enhancement of the lagoon. In addition to this enhancement effort, major ongoing statewide and regional 

projects/programs will likely influence enhancement design and outcomes for the lagoon, including:

• The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s development of Total Maximum Daily Load regulations 

for Buena Vista Lagoon;

• The state’s climate change adaptation planning, which includes addressing projected sea level rise; and, 

• Expansion of the I-5, LOSSAN Rail Corridor and the State Route 78 Interchange.

An optimization study was completed that analyzed the necessary rail bridge lengths that would be required for the 

restoration of the lagoons along the LOSSAN corridor. Based on this study the existing bridge length across the Buena 

Vista Lagoon would support any hydrological changes as a result of the restoration of the lagoon. Therefore, 

lengthening the bridge is not required as part of the Proposed Action. Three enhancement plan alternatives and the no 

project alternative are addressed in the EIR. The enhancement plan alternatives and their main characteristics are:

Freshwater Alternative 

• Expands and deepens open water

• Replaces existing weir and expands from 50’ to 80’ 

• Creates cattail maintenance area 

Salt Water Alternative 

• Removes weir to create tidal wetlands

• Inlet expanded from 50’ to 100’Elevates existing Carlsbad Blvd to accommodate a bridge 

• Creates Pedestrian bridge to cross the new inlet 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-8 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Hybrid Alternative 

• Creates new weir under I-5

• Saltwater west of I-5 and freshwater east of I-5 

• Design option for a channel guide 

Public review of the Draft EIR for this project was completed September 1, 2015 in compliance with the California 

Environmental Quality Act. As identified in the Draft EIR, significant unavoidable environmental impacts with the 

implementation of the enhancement plan alternatives include biological resources (temporary); visual resources 

(temporary and permanent); air quality (temporary); noise (temporary); traffic (temporary); and, public health and safety 

(permanent). Note that the Freshwater enhancement plan alternative would not result in significant unavoidable 

environmental impacts to traffic or public health and safety.

I-5 Bridge Replacement (I-5 North Coast Corridor Project) 

The I-5 NCC is subject to periods of congestion that are projected to worsen over the next 40 years. The I-5 NCC 

Project is proposed to maintain or improve future conditions compared to existing conditions, in order to improve the 

safe and efficient regional movement of people and goods to the project design year. One common design feature to 

all build alternatives is to provide new and/or wider bridges at Soledad Canyon Creek, Los Peñasquitos Creek, Carmel 

Creek, Loma Alta Creek, San Dieguito River, San Luis Rey River, and Sorrento Valley; and at San Dieguito, San Elijo, 

Batiquitos, Agua Hedionda, and Buena Vista Lagoons, with the San Elijo, Batiquitos, and Buena Vista bridges also to 

be lengthened. The design of the Buena Vista Lagoon has not been finalized as it will depend on the alternative chosen 

for the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement project.

3.17.3 Environmental Consequences

Based on methodologies contained in the CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA (CEQ, 1997), the 

cumulative analysis in this section analyzes in detail the issues of Air Quality, Biological Resources and Geology and 

Soils. The area of cumulative effect varies depending on the resource issue analyzed and is referred to as the Resource 

Study Area (RSA). The cumulative air quality RSA for the Proposed Action encompasses the SDAB. The cumulative 

RSA for biological resources is generally the Buena Vista Lagoon. The cumulative RSA for geology and soils is the 

Buena Vista Lagoon and the Carlsbad Village and adjacent residential area.

Proposed Action impacts on other issues/resources would not contribute to adverse cumulative effects because the 

RSA for such impacts would be limited to a small geographical area in the immediate vicinity of the project and the 

cumulative projects are too far away to be included in the RSAs for these issues/resources; and therefore, were not 

analyzed in detail. However, a brief discussion of each environmental resource topic is provided.

The No Action alternative will not have environmental cumulative impacts because this alternative does not involve 

changing existing conditions and is not discussed further below (except for Section 3.17.3.2 Air Quality).

3.17.3.1 Aesthetics 

The Proposed Action is located in an area that includes a lagoon, residential neighborhoods and a commercial district, 

Carlsbad Village. Two cumulative projects are located within the same viewshed, the Buena Vista Lagoon 

Enhancement Project and the I-5 bridge replacement. The Proposed Action is to replace an existing rail with a double 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-9 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

track and make improvements to existing facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with the 

other identified cumulative project in the Proposed Action viewshed, could cause incrementally more visual change in 

the viewshed than the Proposed Action would alone. However, since the Proposed Action would be similar to the 

existing condition, since land uses and facility types would not substantially change, and restoration of the Buena Vista 

Lagoon combined with replacing the I-5 and coast highway 101 bridge could improve the aesthetics of the area by 

improving the function of the lagoon, views and viewer responses would not be adversely impacted. 

Therefore, there will not be an adverse impact to aesthetics, when considering the Proposed Action combined with 

cumulative projects within the Carlsbad Village or Buena Vista Lagoon viewshed.

3.17.3.2 Air Quality 

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Caltrans prepared the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS with FRA, and the final LOSSAN 

PEIR/PEIS was released in 2007 (FRA, 2009). The proposed action is part of the LOSSAN Program under the Rail 

Improvements Alternative. The LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS presents a summary of past, present, and foreseeable actions 

within the study area.

According to the cumulative impact evaluation of the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS: “Overall, the potential impacts of either the 

No-Project or Rail Improvements Alternative, in combination with the air quality impacts of other highway and rail 

projects identified for the cumulative impact analysis and those projects considered in the SIP for air quality, could 

contribute to cumulative air quality impacts within the two-basin study area”.

Under the Rail Improvements Alternative, locomotive miles in the corridor would increase 17 percent over No-Project 

levels. This additional mileage would increase emissions of all pollutants by 17 percent over the No-Project Alternative. 

These additional emissions would potentially cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. However, the Rail 

Improvements Alternative would reduce train congestion and delays along the corridor and the amount of locomotive 

idling time associated with delays and bottlenecks. Proposed grade separation would reduce vehicular delays and 

idling at grade crossings throughout the corridor. These benefits would decrease the cumulative contribution of 

locomotive and vehicular emissions along this corridor. Additionally, the avoidance and minimization and/or mitigation 

measures required to be implemented for each project in the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS, along with the cleaner locomotive 

technologies, would reduce the potential increase in pollutant emissions from the Rail Improvements Alternative. 

Cumulative contributions to air pollution and GHG emissions from operations will be reduced by installation of diesel 

particulate filters, fleet turnover to newer technologies, and reduction of idling through infrastructure improvements and 

automatic anti-idling devices installed on locomotives.

Construction of rail improvements would contribute to short-term cumulative emissions from construction 

equipment/vehicles and fugitive dust. Emissions, in accordance with the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS can be managed through 

timely revegetation of disturbed areas, watering of construction sites, street sweeping, soil stabilization, and restriction 

on equipment idling times. Additionally, joint construction planning with all cumulative projects in the region may allow 

for streamlining construction in a manner of reducing construction durations and associated air quality impacts to local 

communities.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-10 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

The proposed action would not adversely contribute to the cumulative air quality impacts or GHG emissions during 

construction or operation after implementation of avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Section 3.2.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not result in an increase in air emissions for construction since no construction would 

occur. Emissions associated with locomotive operations may decrease due to the implementation of federal and 

California CAA requirements to reduce air emissions; however, due to the less efficient operations associated with the 

No Action Alternative, air pollutant emissions may be worse in comparison to the Proposed Action. Nonetheless, the 

No Action Alternative would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts for air quality or GHG.

3.17.3.3 Biological Resources

As described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, and shown in Table 3.3-2, the Proposed Action would permanently 

impact just 0.03 acres and temporarily impact 2.44 acres of sensitive upland habitats. No sensitive upland species are 

expected to be impacted. Since the other cumulative project in the RSA is an enhancement project, biological resources 

will be positively impacted. 

As described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, and shown in Table 3.3-3 the Proposed Action would permanently 

impact up to 1.23 acre and temporarily impact 0.36 acre of jurisdictional wetland habitats and several sensitive species 

associated with that habitat. Compensatory mitigation via a combination of off-site enhancement, preservation, and/or 

establishment with a minimum 1:1 of creation/restoration would avoid a net loss of wetlands. Ratios would be 

determined in consultation with USACE. Wetland and biological resource impacts from this project and from other 

reasonably foreseeable projects would be implemented with mitigation measures. Because of the nature of the projects, 

primarily linear transportation projects within the existing ROW, they would not significantly contribute to cumulative 

impacts. Threatened and endangered species are subject to Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Section 7 

consultation ensures that the cumulative impact to threatened and endangered species is minimized through the 

requirement for each project to implement conservation measures.

3.17.3.4 Community Impacts and Environmental Justice

In Section 3.4, the Proposed Action has been found to: have mainly beneficial impacts with negligible adverse impacts 

to the community; not have an environmental justice impact; and, have a positive economic impact. The other 

cumulative projects are geographically removed from the local community considered for Community and 

Environmental Justice effects of the Proposed Action. Therefore, when considering the Proposed Action, combined 

with cumulative projects, there is no community or environmental justice cumulative impact.

3.17.3.5 Cultural and Historical Resources

As described in Section 3.5, Cultural and Historical Resources, there is only one historical resource within the ROW 

and potential indirect adverse impacts of the Proposed Action will be mitigated by implementation of CHR-1. Indirect 

impacts to historical resources outside of the ROW are avoided and minimized. Other cumulative projects are not 

located near these resources. Therefore, when considering the Proposed Action with other cumulative projects, there 

is no cumulative impact to cultural and historical resources.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-11 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

3.17.3.6 Geology and Soils

All potential geotechnical impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be avoided or effectively reduced through 

implementation of mitigation/minimization measures GS-1 through GS-4 and conformance with established regulatory 

requirements and recommendations of the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation that would be conducted prior to 

final design of the Proposed Action (refer to Section 3.6). Potential geology and soils effects are also inherently 

site-specific and would not combine with other planned or proposed development to contribute to cumulative impacts. 

The only exception is the Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project, which may affect the potential for scour at the

new bridge location and a complete scour evaluation is currently being conducted as part of the Buena Vista Lagoon 

Enhancement Project. The scour potential of all restoration alternatives is expected to increase over the current 

configuration. The results of the scour analysis would be incorporated into the geotechnical recommendations of this 

Proposed Action during final design. In order to reduce the possibility of a cumulative impact to geology and soils 

associated with scour, mitigation measure GS-1 is required.

3.17.3.7 Hazards 

The Proposed Action is in compliance with applicable hazard regulations and the cumulative projects are also required 

to comply with applicable hazard regulations. Additionally, potential hazard effects are inherently site-specific and would 

not combine with any hazard effects associated with cumulative projects to contribute to cumulative impacts. The 

Proposed Action will reduce any potential for hazards by conducting preliminary media sampling prior to any intrusive 

work (mitigation measure HZ-1). Any hazardous material identified by this sampling would be addressed in 

conformance with applicable regulations. 

3.17.3.8 Hydrology and Floodplain

The Proposed Action would maintain the existing overall drainage patterns in the area. The Proposed Action would not 

increase the peak flows in the existing storm drain system, and thus would not have any adverse impacts to the system. 

The Proposed Action involves construction of a new double track bridge that would raise the elevation of the tracks by 

five feet, thereby removing the tracks from within the Special Flood Hazard Area and eliminating potential flood hazard 

impacts to rail service. The new bridge would also be sufficiently high to avoid flood risks associated with the 100-year 

storm event occurring coincident with a 5.5 foot increase in mean sea level projected for the year 2100. This would also 

be sufficiently high to accommodate the additional risk associated with flow changes attributed to the currently 

anticipated future improvements to the two other Buena Vista Lagoon bridges (the I-5 bridge and the Coast Highway 

bridge). Additionally, the LOSSAN PEIR/PEIS notes that Rail Improvements Alternative (which includes the Proposed 

Action) may improve the existing hydrologic conditions at lagoons in northern San Diego County by removal of existing 

embankments and replacement of existing bridges with open-cell structures, which may increase tidal flow and result 

in a beneficial effect on lagoon hydrology. Therefore, the Proposed Action when considered with cumulative projects 

will not have an adverse effect on hydrology and floodplains.

3.17.3.9 Land Use, Zoning and Property Acquisitions

The Proposed Action would occur within the existing rail ROW and is compatible with existing and planned land uses 

and zoning designations and does not require property acquisitions. This is because improvements would occur along 

an existing, active railway and no new land uses would be introduced. The proposed rail improvements would provide 

infrastructure to serve existing and planned development in the Proposed Action area, as well as the LOSSAN corridor 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-12 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

as a whole. The temporary and permanent use areas are all within the ROW and would not preclude development of 

planned land uses, nor would they conflict with applicable land use and/or zoning designations.

All cumulative projects would be designed to be consistent with relevant local, state, and federal plans and policies.

Therefore, the cumulative projects and Proposed Action will not have an adverse effect on land use.

3.17.3.10 Noise and Vibration

Construction of the Proposed Action would generate noise. This temporary noise would comply with all local noise 

regulations as discussed in Section 3.16.10 Noise and Vibration and would not be considered adverse. However, noise 

control measures would be implemented to minimize noise impacts. Because noise dissipates with distance from its 

source and no other cumulative projects are within the vicinity of sensitive receptors, construction of the Proposed 

Action when considered with other cumulative projects, would not have a cumulative noise impact.

Construction of the Proposed Action may generate vibration levels exceeding FRA thresholds in the vicinity of the 

Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, a historic resource. However, mitigation (CHR-1) will be implemented to minimize damage 

risk to the structure. Other cumulative projects are not within the vicinity of the Depot and thus construction of the 

Proposed Action when considered with other cumulative projects, would not have a cumulative vibration impact.

The Proposed Action is one of many identified in SANDAG’s Infrastructure Development Plan that would facilitate 

ultimate train trips of 101 trains per day providing the planned level of reliability and on-time performance by the year 

2030. Train trips of up to 101 per day could be accommodated without the Proposed Action, but at a lesser level of 

reliability and on-time performance. Upon completion of construction, the continuing increase in train operation levels

to 101 trains expected by the year 2030, coupled with the new alignment of the railroad tracks, could generate noise 

level increases (see Section 3.10). However, noise levels from the cumulative projects would not be noticeable in the 

Proposed Action sensitive receptor area because the cumulative projects are too far away and noise dissipates with 

distance from its source. That is, the cumulative projects would not result in adverse operational noise levels at the 

Proposed Action site that would be greater than those already described for the Proposed Action. These adverse 

impacts are not assessed as being substantial because increase in noise levels would be below FRA thresholds for 

allowable increase in cumulative noise levels. As such, the Proposed Action when considered with other cumulative 

projects would not contribute to substantial cumulative noise impacts during operation.

Operation of the proposed Action may cause an increase in vibration levels at some locations. At other locations there 

is no change or a decrease in vibration levels. However, where there is an increase in vibration levels, it is less than 

FRA thresholds and other cumulative projects are not expected to generate vibrations. Therefore, the Proposed Action, 

when considered with other cumulative projects, would not contribute to substantial vibration impacts.

3.17.3.11 Parks and Recreation

Temporary noise construction impacts to two parks in the vicinity and the Buena Vista Ecological Reserve would be 

minimized through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. There are seven other parks within one 

half a mile of the parks not affected by the Proposed Action and cumulative projects would not affect any of the nine 

parks. Cumulative projects, namely the lagoon restoration project (Buena Vista Lagoon Enhancement Project), may 

affect the Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve but it is mandated by SB 468 that restoration/habitat enhancement 
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-13 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

projects and transportation infrastructure projects within NCC be constructed concurrently, thus reducing the cumulative 

impact of construction. Therefore, based on the discussion above, there is not a cumulative impact to parks and 

recreation.

3.17.3.12 Public Health and Safety

As described in Section 3.12, Public Health and Safety, there are no impacts to emergency services, utilities, schools, 

or hospitals. Therefore, there is not a cumulative impact to public health and safety. 

3.17.3.13 Relocation Impacts

The Proposed Action will occur entirely within the rail ROW and does not require property acquisitions nor will it have 

relocation impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action cannot cumulatively contribute to relocation impacts.

3.17.3.14 Water Quality

Identified potential short- and long-term project-specific water quality impacts associated with the Proposed Action 

would be avoided or effectively reduced through conformance with existing regulatory and permit requirements, 

construction of a bioswale and incorporation of associated BMPs. Because it would not be possible for these efforts to 

completely eliminate the generation of contaminants, the Proposed Action could incrementally contribute to cumulative 

water quality impacts. However, these cumulative impacts are not considered substantially adverse because the 

Proposed Action and identified cumulative projects are subject to the same water quality standards intended to limit 

urban runoff contaminants, provide regulatory conformance, and address regional (i.e., cumulative) water quality 

impacts on a watershed-wide basis.
3.0 – Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 3.17-14 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
4.0 – Coordination and Consultation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 4-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

The information provided in this section is a summary of the information provided in the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad 

Village Double-Track Project Public Involvement Plan (PIP) (SANDAG, 2013c). 

As a Metropolitan Planning Organization, SANDAG maintains an updated Public Participation Plan (PPP) (SANDAG, 

2012) that outlines public participation requirements for capital projects. The PIP for the Proposed Action has been 

developed in accordance with the PPP, and thus the joint FHWA/FTA guidelines, “Public Involvement Techniques for 

Transportation Decision-Making” (1996). It also was drafted to be consistent with the federal and state environmental 

justice laws, regulations, and requirements, Title VI, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflect the principles 

of social equity and environmental justice.

The PIP sets objectives, outlines the public involvement strategy, and defines specific outreach techniques and a 

timeline for their implementation.

4.1 Agency Coordination

The FRA is the lead agency under NEPA for the Proposed Action. This EA is being conducted so that it meets all 

relevant public involvement requirements (e.g., SANDAG Board Policy 25 requirements). Coordination with agency 

partners, such as NCTD, is ongoing and information is being shared for posting on their websites. The design team 

has had several meetings with Carlsbad and Oceanside City staff to discuss the Proposed Action and obtain input.

SANDAG’s environmental staff regularly communicates and coordinates with resource agencies to ensure they are 

kept appraised and knowledgeable of the Proposed Action, its likely impacts to regulated resources, and the project 

team’s public outreach and communications efforts. In order to ensure implementation of the above stated coordination 

and communication, a master distribution and contact database has been developed for the Proposed Action, which 

includes agency partners.

Initial resource agency outreach regarding double tracking projects along the coast in San Diego County occurred on 

November 12, 2009. A representative from the USACE, USFWS, RWQCB, and the CCC were in attendance. The 

purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the resource agencies with the various double track projects, including the 

Proposed Action. No additional project specific meetings with the resource agencies have been held.

The project is also part of the overall I-5 NCC Projects PWP/TREP. Meetings on the PWP/TREP have been ongoing 

since 2009. These meetings are attended by the staff of the aforementioned resource agencies. The PWP/TREP 

functions to provide an overall understanding of the individual and cumulative impacts of the various projects that 

comprise the I-5 NCC Projects. Project alternatives analyses, threatened and endangered species survey 

requirements, sea level rise, impacts, mitigation strategies, project integration, bridge optimization for tidal exchange, 

and a host of other topics have been addressed during the monthly to quarterly meetings. The PWP/TREP was formally 

adopted by the CCC during a noticed public hearing on August 13, 2014. Amendments, not related to the Proposed 

Action were adopted by the CCC on March 9, 2016. Meetings continue to occur on a regular basis, with the recent 

focus being primarily on the freeway and rail projects in San Elijo Lagoon.

Additionally, the design team has coordinated with the City of Carlsbad. They met with the City of Carlsbad on May 28, 

2015, and July 16, 2015 to discuss action alternatives.
4.0 – Coordination and Consultation

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 4-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

4.2 Public Outreach

Communication methods have been established in order to ensure that all of the interested and affected stakeholders 

are informed of the project and are able to provide input throughout the project development process. Public outreach 

activities were conducted before and during the NEPA process to ensure public awareness of opportunities to provide 

input. Public outreach techniques typically include informational public meetings, project update presentation meetings, 

web-based media, media coordination, resource agency consultation, stakeholder outreach, collateral materials 

development, materials translation, and video/multimedia (SANDAG, 2013c). The public outreach process began in 

May 2013 with developing and maintaining a stakeholder database. Following the creation of this database, the PIP 

was finalized, and the project factsheet was updated (http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Libraries/Lossandoc/1968-FactSheetCarlsbadVillageDoubleTrack_pdf_041315.sflb.ashx). Monitoring, updating of project website, and 

responding to public inquiries, is ongoing. 

The EA, which includes the Proposed Action’s potential effect on Historic Properties in Section 3.5, will be available for 

a 30-day public review and comment period. SANDAG will provide the public notice of the review period and will make 

the EA available electronically through their website. Public comments received on the EA will be considered by 

SANDAG and FRA in deciding if a Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement must be 

prepared.

4.3 Consultation

Consultation is required with the following federal and state agencies:

• US Army Corps of Engineers - Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10. Impact 

to wetlands and waters of the U.S;

• Regional Water Quality Control Board - Clean Water Act Section 401. Required for a Section 404 permit;

• California Coastal Commission – Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Certification;

• US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Section 7. Required due to impacts to listed species;

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - Endangered Species Act Section 7. Required due to impacts to 

listed species and Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for impacts to Essential 

Fish Habitat;

• State Historic Preservation Office - National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. For impacts to cultural or 

historical resources.

Consultation for impoundment impacts to water is not required with state CDFW because there is less than 10 acres 

of impact to water (16 USC 662(h)). FRA sent a letter dated August 3, 2017 to SHPO initiating the consultation under 

Section 106. Consultations with USFWS and NMFS has been initiated by FRA. Both consultations are pending. Permit 

applications to the USACE/RWQCB and CCC would need to be submitted by SANDAG once NEPA is complete. 
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

5.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

This EA was distributed to the state, regional, and local agencies listed in this section as well as potentially impacted 

parcel owners in the project area.

Federal Agencies

Col. Kirk. E. Gibbs

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

Regulatory Division

South Coast Branch/Carlsbad Field Office

5900 La Place Court, Suite 100

Carlsbad, CA 92008

David Zoutendyk

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Fish & Wildlife Office

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250

Carlsbad, California 92008

State Agencies

Edmund Pert

State of California

Department of Fish & Wildlife, South Coast Region 

(Region 5)

3883 Ruffin Road

San Diego, CA 92123

Malcolm Dougherty

State of California

Department of Transportation, Caltrans, District 11

4050 Taylor Street, MS 240

San Diego, CA 92110

Elizaveta Malashenko

State of California

Public Utilities Commission

Safety and Enforcement Division

320 West 4th Street, Suite 500

Los Angeles, CA 90013

State Clearinghouse

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

1400 Tenth Street

Sacramento, CA 95812-3044

Local Agencies

City of Oceanside 

Planning Department Director

300 N Coast Hwy

Oceanside, CA 92054

City of Oceanside Planning Commission

c/o Jeff Hunt, City Planner

300 N Coast Hwy

Oceanside, CA 92054

City of Carlsbad

Planning Department Director

1635 Faraday Avenue

Carlsbad, CA 92008

City of Carlsbad Planning Commission

1635 Faraday Avenue

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Matt Tucker

NCTD

810 Mission Avenue

Oceanside, CA 92054

County of San Diego

Planning and Development Services Director

5510 Overland Avenue

San Diego, CA 92123
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Utilities

Dean Boyers

MCI Communications Services, Inc.

400 International Pkwy

Richardson, TX 75081

Bryant Lowe

Next G Networks, Inc.

2000 Corporate Dr.

Canonburg, PA 15317

Joseph Forkert

AT&T California

22311 Brookhurst Street, Suite 203

Huntington Beach, Ca 92646

Marian Price

Cox Communications

5159 Federal Boulevard

San Diego, Ca 92105

Tom Scanian/Marcus Soto

Time Warner Cable

10450 Pacific Center Court

San Diego, Ca 92121

Jany Staley 

SDG&E

8315 Century Park Court

San Diego, Ca 92123-1548

Potentially Impacted Parcel Owners

APN 15326301

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15326302

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15501201

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15510136

McInerny Family Survivors Trust 05-27-92 et al

19 St. Malo Bch

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15510136

Frederick Schwartzenbach

472 Arlington Dr

Pasadena, CA 91105

APN 15510147

Shupe Trust 04-19-00

117 Eaton St

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15510149

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15510159

Scott E & Scott L Hansen

4188 W Vermillion Dr

South Jordan, UT 84009

APN 15510166

State of California

APN 15510169

William A Brackenridge Jr

17 St Malo Bch

Oceanside, CA 92054
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

APN 15510202

St Malo Association Inc.

580 Beech Ave #B

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 15510242

St Malo Association Inc. c/o Diehl Evans

2965 Roosevelt St

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 15519005

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15519007

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15519009

State of California Wildlife Reserve

APN 15519011

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15519012

State of California Wildlife Reserve

APN 15519014

State of California

APN 15520001

Carlsbad Sanitation District

1960 La Costa Ave

Carlsbad, CA 92009

APN 15520011

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15520012

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 15520013

City of Carlsbad

1200 Carlsbad Village Drive

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20301016

Army & Navy Academy Carlsbad

PO Box 3000

Carlsbad, CA 92018

APN 20301021

Beach Homeowners Association c/o Lindsay 

Management Services

7720 El Camino Real

Carlsbad, CA 92009

APN 20305104 

Artukovic Family Trust 11-15-99

1815 Ivy Rd

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 20305301

Army & Navy Academy Carlsbad

PO Box 3000

Carlsbad, CA 92018

APN 20305428

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

APN 20305432

Artukovic Family Trust 11-15-99

1815 Ivy Rd

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 20305433

Army & Navy Academy Carlsbad

PO Box 3000 

Carlsbad, CA 92018

APN 20326008

Hunjan Gulzar Singh

13790 Nob Ave

Del Mar, CA 92014

APN 20326016

San Katrina LLC

7136 Vista Del Mar Ave

La Jolla, CA 92037

APN 20329605

Siegel Eugene H Tr

5553 Trinity Way

San Diego, CA 92120

APN 20329606

City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency

1200 Carlsbad Village Drive

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20329607

Butler Properties, LLC

PO Box 4050 

Newport Beach, CA 92661

APN 20329611

Thomas D & Lucinda S Vigne

3880 Hibiscus Cir

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20329612

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 20401005

City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency

1200 Carlsbad Village Drive

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20401006

City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency

1200 Carlsbad Village Drive

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20401008 

Matthew Hall Revocable Trust 03-25-92

2604 El Camino Real #334

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20410110

Matthew Hall Revocable Trust 03-05-92

2604B El Camino Real #334

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20401014

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 20401015

City of Carlsbad

1200 Carlsbad Village Drive

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20407023

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

APN 20407025

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 20407028

Public Storage of Carlsbad Inc.

701 Western Ave

Glendale, CA 91201

APN 20427031

Lester & Marjorie Wilson

391 Redwood Ave

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 20427032

Donald Stoller

390 Tamarack Ave

Carlsbad, CA 92008

APN 76016637

NCTD

810 Mission Ave

Oceanside, CA 92054

APN 76016638

Vine Church

7040 Avenida Encinas #104-327

Carlsbad, CA 92011

Interested Parties

David Belleperche

368 Camino Elevado

Bonita, CA 91902

Bruce Beyor

bbbeyor@yahoo.com

Candice & Roger Bowman

3655 Newcrest Point

San Diego, Ca 92130

Don DeOliveira

Don.DeOliveira@viasat.com

Mel Hinton

San Diego Audubon Society

4010 Morena Blvd Suite 100

San Diego, Ca 92117

Deborah Knight

Executive Director

Friends of Rose Canyon

PO Box 221051

Jimmy Knott

124 Cherry Lane

Oceanside, Ca 92008

Janay Kruger

4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Ste 1080

San Diego, CA 92123

Frank Landis, Ph.D.

California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter

PO Box 121390

San Diego, CA 92112-1390

James W. Royle, Jr.

San Diego Archaeological Society

PO Box 81106

San Diego, CA 92138-1106

San Diego, CA 92192-1051
5.0 – Distribution List

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 5-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
6.0 – List of Preparers

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 6-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

The following persons were principally responsible for preparation of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

6.1 Federal Railroad Administration

Stephanie B. Perez, PG, Office of Program Delivery

6.2 California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail, MS 74

Chrystal Ortiz, Capital Projects and Operations, South Branch

6.3 San Diego Association of Governments

Keith Greer, Principal Regional Planner

Cheryle Hodge, Senior Environmental Planner 

Lauren Esposito, Associate Environmental Planner

Kiran Kaur, Environmental Planner

6.4 BRG Consulting, Inc. (Project Environmental Analysis)

Erich Lathers, Principal-in-Charge 

Megan Hamilton, Project Manager

John Addenbrooke, Production Manager and Environmental Planner

Eddie Arcadia, Visual Simulation

6.5 T.Y. Lin International Group (Engineer Lead)

Stephen Smith, P.E. Associate Vice President/Principal

Philip Brand, P.E. Project Engineer

6.6 Merkel and Associates (Biological Resources)

Keith Merkel, Principal

Amanda Gonzales, Senior Biologist/Project Manager

Adam Behle, Senior Biologist/Project Manager

Rachel Woodfiled, Biologist

Brad Kelly, GIS

Nancy Rogers, Administration

6.7 ASM Affiliates, Inc. (Cultural and Historical Resources)

Sinead Ni Ghabhlain, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

Scott Wolf, Project Archaeologist

Shelby Gunderman Castells, Senior Archaeologist
6.0 – List of Preparers

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 6-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

6.8 ATS Consulting (Noise and Vibration)

Steven Wolf, Vice President

Andrew Wong, Associate

Shankar Rajaram, Associate

Shannon McKenna, Associate

6.9 Pan Environmental, Inc. (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases)

Dana Byrne, REA, Senior Air Quality Consultant

Ann Wu, Associate Air Quality Consultant

6.10 St. George Chadux Corporation (Hazardous Materials)

Christian Herencia, P.E., Program Manager/Supervising Engineer

D. Eric Rider, Chemist/Project Manager

Michael Anderson, Environmental Scientist
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-1 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

7.0 REFERENCES

ASM Affiliates, 2013

Cultural and Historical Resources Existing Conditions and Evaluation Report for the Pacific Surfliner 

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project. Prepared by ASM Affiliates. August 2013.

ATS Consulting, 2014

Draft Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project. Prepared by 

ATS Consulting. June 2014.

BRG, 2017

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared for SANDAG by BRG Consulting, 

Inc. October 2017.

BRG, 2016

Pacific Surfliner Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 Double-Track Project Environmental Assessment. Prepared for 

SANDAG by BRG Consulting, Inc. July 2016.

BRG, 2014a

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Visual Impact Assessment. Prepared for SANDAG 

by BRG Consulting, Inc. June 2014.

BRG, 2014b

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Community Impact Assessment. Prepared for 

SANDAG by BRG Consulting, Inc. June 2014.

BRG, 2014c

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Environmental Justice Technical Report. Prepared 

for SANDAG by BRG Consulting, Inc. June 2014.

BRG, 2014d

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Land Use Technical Report. Prepared for SANDAG 

by BRG Consulting, Inc. June 2014.

California Public Resources Code, 2013

Public Resources Code, Division 20: California Coastal Act. 2013. http://coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), 2007. 

California Invasive Plant Inventory [Internet]. 2007 Inventory Update. http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-2 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

CEQ, 1997

Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 1997. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf

CEQ, 2010

Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

February 18, 2010.

CCC, 2012

Program Overview. Prepared by California Coastal Commission, 2012. 

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html

City of Carlsbad, 2017

Carlsbad Village Double Track – Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study, 

January 2017

City of Carlsbad, 2013

General Plan. Prepared by City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 2013.

City of Carlsbad, 2012

Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual. City of Carlsbad. November 2012.

City of Carlsbad, 2011. 

City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Water Management Plan. City of Carlsbad. January 14, 2011.

City of Carlsbad, 2010

Local Coastal Program. City of Carlsbad. March 2010

City of Carlsbad, 2004

Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. Approved 

November 2004.

City of Oceanside, 2010

Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. City of Oceanside. 2010.

City of Oceanside, 2002

General Plan. City of Oceanside Planning Division. June 2002.

City of Oceanside, 1985

Local Coastal Program. City of Oceanside Planning Division. July 1985.
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-3 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Deméré & Walsh, 1994

Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Thomas A. Deméré and Stephan L. Walsh, Department of 

Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum. August 1994. 

Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014a

Preliminary Foundation Report for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Carlsbad Village Station Pedestrian 

Undercrossing. Prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. February 2014.

Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2014b

Preliminary Foundation Report for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge. Prepared 

by Earth Mechanics, Inc. February 2014.

EPA, 2013a

The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How it Works. EPA. March 22, 2013.

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/pdfs/CAA_Nutshell.pdf

EPA, 2013b

Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA. July 26, 2013.

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act

EPA, 2012a

Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA. June 27, 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lrca.html#About

EPA, 2012b

Overview of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA. June 27, 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lfra.html

EPA, 2012c

Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA. March 6, 2012.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm

EPA, 2011a

CERCLA Overview. EPA. December 12, 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

EPA, 2011b

SARA Overview. EPA. December 12, 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-4 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

EPA, 2011c

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Overview. EPA. January 28, 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/lawsregs/hmtaover.htm

Everest International, 2014

Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Buena Vista Lagoon Bridge Fluvial Hydraulic Analysis Draft Report. 

Prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc. February 2014.

FEMA, 2013

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 

06073C0761G, Panel 761 of 2375. Map Revised May 16, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2013.

FRA, 2012

U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Railroad Policy and Development, High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Document DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. September 2012 

FRA, 2009

Los Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Program Environmental Impact Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the FRA by California Department of Transportation. Record 

of Decision, March 18, 2009.

FHWA, 1996

Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making. Federal Highway Administration. 1996.

FHWA, 1981

Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Federal Highway Administration. March 1981.

FTA, 2006

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006

Kornblatt, 1989

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Project. Kornblatt. 1989

NOAA, 2013

Coastal Zone Management Act: Federal Consistency Overview. 2013. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.html

Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2016

Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Biological Technical Report. Prepared by Merkel & 

Associates, Inc. February 2, 2016.
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-5 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Pan Environmental, 2013

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Technical Report. Prepared by Pan Environmental, Inc. 

September 2013.

RailPros, 2011

Project Study Report. RailPros. 2011.

SANDAG, 2015a

San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. San Diego Association of Governments and AECOM. October 

2015.

SANDAG, 2015b

Final Environmental Impact Report for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. San Diego Association of 

Governments and AECOM. October 2015.

SANDAG, 2013a

North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. San Diego Association of Governments. 2013. 

http://www.sandag.org/?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail

SANDAG, 2013b

North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program. San Diego 

Association of Governments. March 2013.

SANDAG, 2013c

Pacific Surfliner – Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project Public Involvement Plan. San Diego Association of 

Governments. October 25, 2013.

SANDAG, 2013d

Infrastructure Development Plan for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County. San Diego Association 

of Governments. August 2013.

SANDAG 2012

Public Participation Plan. San Diego Association of Governments. December 2012.

SANDAG, 2004

Regional Comprehensive Plan. San Diego Association of Governments. 2004.

SanGIS, 2013

SanGIS Regional Data Warehouse. Accessed 2013. http://www.sangis.org/download/index.html

SanGIS, 2014

SanGIS Regional Data Warehouse. Accessed 2014. http://www.sangis.org/download/index.html
7.0 – References

Carlsbad Village Double Track Project 7-6 April 2018

Environmental Assessment

SanGIS, 2016

SanGIS Regional Data Warehouse. Accessed 2016. http://www.sangis.org/download/index.html

St. George Chadux Corp., 2013.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared by St. George Chadux Corp. August 2013.

State of California, 2000

State Planning and Zoning Law. Government Code of the State of California. Section 653000, 2000. 

http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/2000/pzd2000_web/pzd2000_plan3.html

T.Y. Lin 2013

CAD Data provided by T.Y. Lin

T.Y. Lin, 2014a

Carlsbad Village Double Track Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report. Prepared by T.Y. Lin 

International. April 2014.

T.Y. Lin, 2014b

Draft Preliminary Drainage Report for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project. Prepared by T.Y. Lin 

International. March 2014.

T.Y. Lin, 2014c

Draft Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project. Prepared 

by T.Y. Lin International. March 2014.

T.Y. Lin, 2014d

Carlsbad Village Double Track Utility Impacts Report. Prepared by T.Y. Lin International. March 2014.

USEPA, 2010

Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010.

WSA, 1987

LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study. Wilbur Smith and Associates. 1987.